From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Feb 1 00:16:45 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:16:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <687228.71803.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I apologize for disturbing the peace by resurrecting a long-buried post, but I thought it was worth a comment, and I've been away from the Internet for a while. Some time ago Jef Albright wrote: "Seeking pleasure is ammoral , but tends to correlate with activity that we would assess as "good"." I would go so far as to say that achieving pleasure for oneself is, per se, beyond just being ammoral. I would argue that achieving pleasure for oneself is positively moral. It is only incidental that the entity that appears to sense and enjoy the pleasure is the one who is commonly considered to be "oneself". IOW, pleasing oneself is a special case of a more general condition (what Jef might consider "greater scope") of the whole of sentient beings experiencing pleasure. That's not to say that all sentients have a desire to please any sentient apart from themselves - as many examples will testify. However, I think that most humans would want other sentients to experience pleasure, all else being equal. IMHO, pleasing oneself only becomes arguably immoral (or ammoral) when the cost of the self-pleasure is a loss of pleasure in other sentients or a gain in suffering of other sentients. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Thu Feb 1 00:25:31 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:25:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701311418j75fbda8ctf85bcf7ff68e08a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701311418j75fbda8ctf85bcf7ff68e08a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45C1337B.8030409@pobox.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > It's difficult to reliably distinguish in advance between visionary > ideas and wishful thinking, but I will suggest as a general guideline > looking at the following categories of claims: > > X is *possible* vs X is *easy*. > X *could* happen vs X *will* happen. > X can be achieved *someday* vs X can be achieved *within a specific time*. > > In each case claims of the former type have very often proved true, > whereas claims of the latter type usually have not, so we should be > receptive to the former but much more skeptical of the latter. "Me too." -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Feb 1 00:40:59 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:40:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself In-Reply-To: <687228.71803.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <687228.71803.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Interesting subject line for this thread. I hope it isn't self-referential? AB wrote: > Some time ago Jef Albright wrote: >> "Seeking pleasure is ammoral , but tends to correlate with activity that we would assess as "good"." >? > I would go so far as to say that achieving pleasure > for oneself is, per se,?beyond just being ammoral. > I would argue that achieving pleasure for oneself > is positively moral. It is only incidental that the > entity that appears to sense and enjoy?the pleasure > is the one who is commonly considered to be "oneself". > IOW, pleasing?oneself is a special case of a more general >?condition (what Jef might consider?"greater scope")?of > the whole of sentient beings experiencing pleasure. > That's not to say that all sentients have a desire > to please any sentient apart from themselves - as > many examples will testify. However, I think that > most humans would?want other sentients to experience > pleasure, all else being equal.?IMHO, pleasing oneself > only becomes arguably immoral (or ammoral) when the > cost of the self-pleasure is a loss of pleasure in > other sentients or a gain in suffering of other sentients. So I understand that you believe pleasure is the ultimate measure of morality. I understand you are claiming that morality is measured with respect to pleasure integrated over all sentient beings, right? Do you also integrate over all time? So that which provides the greatest pleasure for the greatest number for the greatest time is the most moral? I assume you acknowledge the necessity of some short term sacrifice of pleasure in order to achieve the greater pleasure. How do you see that working in principle? Based on your reasoning, if 50 percent of the population are feeling less than average pleasure, would it be a moral good to eliminate them from the population in order to raise the overall level of pleasure? - Jef From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Thu Feb 1 00:43:22 2007 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:43:22 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3642969c0701311643t6246ec9eq56951950da769dad@mail.gmail.com> healthy, lucid, self-examinatory answers all; well done and congratulations, I think as a collective you guys have definitely passed the cult test with flying colours. what I was looking for wasn't necessarily direct responses to any of my egregious excoriations; what I was looking for was whether criticism could be parsed without rancor and whether unfettered self-examination came naturally; in both cases the responses were wonderful, served with a clarity, insight and self-effacement not often seen in our mighty tubular interwebs. *applauds* From neptune at superlink.net Thu Feb 1 00:56:02 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sea boom References: <65464.86.130.30.87.1170253431.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <003c01c7459b$bf3334c0$b5893cd1@pavilion> On Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:23 AM Anders Sandberg asa at nada.kth.se wrote: > "The Sea Launch Zenit-3SL vehicle, carrying the NSS-8 satellite, > experienced an anomaly today during launch operations." as stated on > http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/ > > The anomaly was of the explosive kind, unfortunately: > http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=eMG2SBwIcrM&eurl=http%3A//www.e24.se/dynamiskt/klacksparkar/did_14533588.asp&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static3.sjl.youtube.com/vi/eMG2SBwIcrM/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskLcQYWlDCcNpLn1Q6HKkWpu > > Perhaps not a major setback, but sad. However, the explosion is neat. Yes, sad and neat to see. In a way, it's good it happened now and not, say, several years ago. They've already got quite a few successful launches under their belt, so it's a proven model. However, whether they'll continue is another matter. I'm not sure how damaged the launch platform is and that might be the deciding factor. (Of course, it all depends on how much profit they can make off launches. This might drive up their [self?] insurance costs considerably.) Regards, Dan From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Feb 1 01:39:18 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:39:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself Message-ID: <380-220072411391841@M2W020.mail2web.com> Hummm... -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web From neptune at superlink.net Thu Feb 1 02:26:44 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:26:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself References: <380-220072411391841@M2W020.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <000d01c745a8$6b166300$f4893cd1@pavilion> Not offering this as my opinion on the subject, but here it is to provoke comment: "A 60's-era interview with Paul Krassner in _The Realist_ comes to mind. Now, I love Paul Krassner and _The Realist_, and I understand that Mailer was trying to live up to his reputation as a professional asshole in this interview. The subject turned to masturbation, and Mailer declared that masturbation was misunderstood to be healthy when it is in fact traumatic and damaging to men, because it is an essentially isolating act. He then counseled men to do anything necessary, even if they had to commit rape, in order to avoid having to masturbate." >From http://www.litkicks.com/BeatPages/msg.jsp?what=MailerLeak Regards, Dan From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Feb 1 02:49:16 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 03:49:16 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701311643t6246ec9eq56951950da769dad@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> <3642969c0701311643t6246ec9eq56951950da769dad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <57737.86.130.30.87.1170298156.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> kevin.osborne wrote: > healthy, lucid, self-examinatory answers all; well done and > congratulations, I think as a collective you guys have definitely > passed the cult test with flying colours. "I passed the cult test but all I got was this T-shirt!" :-) I think transhumanism is a bit unusual in its tendency towards self-examination. But of course, that can be negatively formulated as self-absorption and narcissism too. Sometimes I think we started thinking we were going into the history books a few decades too early. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From amara at amara.com Thu Feb 1 07:30:23 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:30:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sabine's inspiration(s) Message-ID: Hi folks, this story by Sabine of what inspires her, and her perspective of theoretical physics and building our future is really nice. She's a very clear writer with a wonderful enthusiasm. Highly recommended! http://asymptotia.com/2007/01/31/sabine-hossenfelder-my-inspiration/ Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From ben at goertzel.org Thu Feb 1 07:43:18 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:43:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ben's 119'th dream In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0BA18198-85BA-4277-8579-DC4BF9C674FE@goertzel.org> In a totally different vein, I took a couple hours and wrote down a recurring dream I've had for years, which is a sort of metaphor for transhumanism and the quest to create AGI... http://goertzel.org/Colors.pdf [warning: no scientific content, just some peculiar literature with a metaphoric transhumanist theme...] Not as funny as my post-apocalyptic scenario from a few years back, The McBuddha Awakens: http://www.goertzel.org/fiction/McBuddhaAwakens.htm -- Ben G On Feb 1, 2007, at 2:30 AM, Amara Graps wrote: > > Hi folks, this story by Sabine of what inspires her, and her > perspective > of theoretical physics and building our future is really nice. She's > a very clear writer with a wonderful enthusiasm. Highly recommended! > > http://asymptotia.com/2007/01/31/sabine-hossenfelder-my-inspiration/ > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, > ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), > Tucson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 1 09:29:45 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:29:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <57737.86.130.30.87.1170298156.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> <3642969c0701311643t6246ec9eq56951950da769dad@mail.gmail.com> <57737.86.130.30.87.1170298156.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20070201092945.GO21677@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:49:16AM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > self-absorption and narcissism too. Sometimes I think we started thinking > we were going into the history books a few decades too early. I don't expect most people here are that hubristic/foolish. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu Feb 1 17:07:59 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:07:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer><0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org><005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer><008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2><7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com><003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer><002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer><9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org><45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com><001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com><001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer><001d01c74560$2abee900$dd084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002d01c74623$8d616b00$a2054e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > Replications have occurred in many university That's why their results have appeared in well respected scientific journals; oh wait, that hasn't happened. > and industry labs And that's why billions of dollars from venture capitalist have flooded in into this potential gold mine to fund cold fusion start up companies; oh wait, that hasn't happened either. > Read the literature I would love to, but a website is not "the literature", UFO Abduction Quarterly is not "the literature". Show me an article in Nature or Science reporting positive cold fusion results and you have won the argument. Just one article, that's all you have to do. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Thu Feb 1 17:18:00 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:18:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <002d01c74623$8d616b00$a2054e0c@MyComputer> References: <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org> <45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com> <001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com> <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> <001d01c74560$2abee900$dd084e0c@MyComputer> <002d01c74623$8d616b00$a2054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com> > I would love to, but a website is not "the literature", UFO Abduction > Quarterly is not "the literature". Show me an article in Nature or Science > reporting positive cold fusion results and you have won the argument. Just > one article, that's all you have to do. I am suggesting you to read a particular book, EXCESS HEAT, which surveys a lot of the scientific journal literature on CF, and also explains the political and social dynamics which led to Nature and Science not wishing to publish papers on CF. -- Ben G From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 1 17:25:48 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:25:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] pointer to another EP/fMRI article In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070201122443.03afeea0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> http://thetartan.org/2007/1/29/pillbox/shopping From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Feb 1 17:37:54 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:37:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Ben's 119'th dream In-Reply-To: <0BA18198-85BA-4277-8579-DC4BF9C674FE@goertzel.org> References: <0BA18198-85BA-4277-8579-DC4BF9C674FE@goertzel.org> Message-ID: Ben wrote: > In a totally different vein, I took a couple hours and wrote down a > recurring dream I've had for years, which is a sort of metaphor for > transhumanism and the quest to create AGI... > > http://goertzel.org/Colors.pdf > > [warning: no scientific content, just some peculiar literature with > a > metaphoric transhumanist theme...] > Thanks Ben for sharing this. It's nice to know you see them/us too. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Feb 1 17:59:33 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:59:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Performance Limitations on Engineered Biological Systems Message-ID: An interesting, apparently recent, essay by John Smart. http://www.accelerationwatch.com/biotech.html - Jef From jonkc at att.net Thu Feb 1 18:29:31 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:29:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org><45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com><001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com><001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer><001d01c74560$2abee900$dd084e0c@MyComputer><002d01c74623$8d616b00$a2054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer> "Benjamin Goertzel" > I am suggesting you to read a particular book, EXCESS HEAT, which > surveys a lot of the scientific journal literature on CF, and also > explains the political and social dynamics which led to Nature and > Science not wishing to publish papers on CF. So let's review, some bozo I've never heard of called Charles G Beaudette wrote a book called "Excess Heat", which I've also never heard of. You say the book makes the claim that the editors of Nature and Science and ALL the top physics journals have been full of shit for the last 17 years; and then you recommend that I read this book. Benjamin, you really don't make a very compelling case that I should run out right now and buy that book. It seems a tad more likely to me that Mr. Beaudette is full of shit rather than all the most respected scientific journals on the planet are. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Thu Feb 1 19:26:26 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:26:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer> References: <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org><45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com><001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com><001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer><001d01c74560$2abee900$dd084e0c@MyComputer><002d01c74623$8d616b00$a2054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com> <006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Beaudette's book gives an excellent guide to the scientific literature on the topic. For one thing, it can be read as an annotated bibliography of the published literature on the topic, which is spread across a bunch of different scientific journals. Starting by reading the papers recommended in his book is better than reading random papers on cold fusion found via Googling, for example. Anyway, if you won't even take the time to read the available information on the topic, there's not much point in arguing with you on the topic. You are ignorant on this topic. I am less so. You are arguing that I have not convinced you to become informed on the topic. Apparently not. Fortunately, I have more interesting things to do with my time than try to convince you to become less ignorant on this topic '-) I welcome arguments on the reality of cold fusion with anyone who is familiar with the relevant scientific literature. ben g On Feb 1, 2007, at 1:29 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Benjamin Goertzel" > >> I am suggesting you to read a particular book, EXCESS HEAT, which >> surveys a lot of the scientific journal literature on CF, and also >> explains the political and social dynamics which led to Nature and >> Science not wishing to publish papers on CF. > > So let's review, some bozo I've never heard of called Charles G > Beaudette > wrote a book called "Excess Heat", which I've also never heard of. > You say > the book makes the claim that the editors of Nature and Science and > ALL the > top physics journals have been full of shit for the last 17 years; > and then > you recommend that I read this book. Benjamin, you really don't > make a very > compelling case that I should run out right now and buy that book. > It seems > a tad more likely to me that Mr. Beaudette is full of shit rather > than all > the most respected scientific journals on the planet are. > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 1 19:40:06 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:40:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: References: <3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com> <006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20070201194006.GE21677@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 02:26:26PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > I welcome arguments on the reality of cold fusion with anyone who is > familiar with the relevant scientific literature. You got me sufficiently interested to try the book (unfortunately, it's ridiculously expensive on amazon.de). I don't expect to learn anything about the reality of the phenomenon (I concur with John that it's >99% likely it's sloppy experimentation), but I expect to be entertained by the social aspect of it, aka the cold fusion craze (hey, I was a brief believer, myself). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From ben at goertzel.org Thu Feb 1 19:52:09 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:52:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <20070201194006.GE21677@leitl.org> References: <3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com> <006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer> <20070201194006.GE21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6267E8CD-C635-42A4-9F9A-AE283EC8B95A@goertzel.org> On Feb 1, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 02:26:26PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > >> I welcome arguments on the reality of cold fusion with anyone who is >> familiar with the relevant scientific literature. > > You got me sufficiently interested to try the book (unfortunately, > it's ridiculously expensive on amazon.de). I don't expect to learn > anything about the reality of the phenomenon (I concur with John > that it's >99% likely it's sloppy experimentation), My prediction is that if you read the book and follow up a little bit by poking into the literature, your certainty in this regard will decrease to significantly below 99%... Please let us know, anyway ;-) ben > but I expect > to be entertained by the social aspect of it, aka the cold fusion > craze (hey, I was a brief believer, myself). > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 1 19:33:55 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:33:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself In-Reply-To: <380-220072411391841@M2W020.mail2web.com> References: <380-220072411391841@M2W020.mail2web.com> Message-ID: I have in the past discussed and debated hedonism as a philosophy. I learned that the word means different things to different people. Some people do not make the distinction I make between the experience of 'sensual pleasure' and the more ephemeral experience of 'happiness', considering them more or less different manifestations of the same category of experience. To me there is a clear distinction. Coincidently I was thinking about this distinction just a few nights ago, before this thread started. Like most people I love and seek pleasure but I was asking myself why happiness nevertheless seems better than pleasure. It occurred to me that the answer has something to do with *memory*. I find it relatively easy to re-experience some sense of past happiness via recall, but have difficulty conjuring up similar re-experiences of past sensual pleasures. So, in this sense, happiness keeps on giving but sensual pleasure does not. These kinds of considerations have become more important to me as I've grown older. In my youth I didn't care much about the distinction between pleasure and happiness, but as I grow older I become steadily more cognizant of my mortality. What things of value will I still have in my possession in those final moments before I die? I will have some memories of happiness, and not much else. -gts From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Thu Feb 1 20:28:35 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:28:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <979346.71747.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Jef, To clear up any possible confusion, I did not intend this post or thread name to exclusively imply sexual self-satisfaction, but rather any activity that provides oneself with pleasure; from watching TV to decoding the Universe. Although in principle, I don't see anything morally wrong with sexual self-satisfaction. Perhaps I should have been more careful in choosing a subject title. Oh well, maybe it will generate more thread attention ;-) Anyway, moving on ... Jef writes: "So I understand that you believe pleasure is the ultimate measure of morality." *Subjective* pleasure {as well as capacity for subjective pleasure} (in it's myriad forms to include those which some people would consider distasteful) over the "largest scope" -meaning the highest number of sentient beings regardless of their station of existence, yes. Jef writes: "I understand you are claiming that morality is measured with respect to pleasure integrated over all sentient beings, right? Do you also integrate over all time? So that which provides the greatest pleasure for the greatest number for the greatest time is the most moral?" Fundamentally, yes. However, this does not necessarily imply that one must inexorably commit immoral acts against other sentients in order to achieve this goal. Jef writes: "I assume you acknowledge the necessity of some short term sacrifice of pleasure in order to achieve the greater pleasure. How do you see that working in principle?" Well, we are dealing in abstract ideals and not in the grit of reality. However, achieving the "greater pleasure" does not inevitably require imposing suffering, or a loss of pleasure, or a loss of capacity for pleasure on any *other* sentient beings. For example, if 99% of hard working Americans chose to donate $30.00 to the advancement of altruistic AGI, well... good things would probably happen. Now donating that $30.00 may necessitate that a donor remain at his crappy job that he hates, but he always retains the choice not to donate and not to work, if he so chooses. It's a willful sacrifice. Jef writes: "Based on your reasoning, if 50 percent of the population are feeling less than average pleasure, would it be a moral good to eliminate them from the population in order to raise the overall level of pleasure?" No, definitely not. A more moral action would be to lift the lower 50% out of their unhappiness. Perhaps I could make my original statement more applicable by saying: Pleasing oneself only becomes arguably immoral or ammoral when the cost of the self-pleasure is a loss of pleasure in other sentients, a gain in suffering of other sentients, or a loss of capacity for pleasure in other sentients. In this case, if you were to kill the lower 50% you'd be bringing their capacity for subjective pleasure down to zero, in addition to eliminating whatever low level of pleasure that they did manage to experience to begin with. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich Jef Allbright wrote: Interesting subject line for this thread. I hope it isn't self-referential? AB wrote: > Some time ago Jef Albright wrote: >> "Seeking pleasure is ammoral , but tends to correlate with activity that we would assess as "good"." > > I would go so far as to say that achieving pleasure > for oneself is, per se, beyond just being ammoral. > I would argue that achieving pleasure for oneself > is positively moral. It is only incidental that the > entity that appears to sense and enjoy the pleasure > is the one who is commonly considered to be "oneself". > IOW, pleasing oneself is a special case of a more general > condition (what Jef might consider "greater scope") of > the whole of sentient beings experiencing pleasure. > That's not to say that all sentients have a desire > to please any sentient apart from themselves - as > many examples will testify. However, I think that > most humans would want other sentients to experience > pleasure, all else being equal. IMHO, pleasing oneself > only becomes arguably immoral (or ammoral) when the > cost of the self-pleasure is a loss of pleasure in > other sentients or a gain in suffering of other sentients. So I understand that you believe pleasure is the ultimate measure of morality. I understand you are claiming that morality is measured with respect to pleasure integrated over all sentient beings, right? Do you also integrate over all time? So that which provides the greatest pleasure for the greatest number for the greatest time is the most moral? I assume you acknowledge the necessity of some short term sacrifice of pleasure in order to achieve the greater pleasure. How do you see that working in principle? Based on your reasoning, if 50 percent of the population are feeling less than average pleasure, would it be a moral good to eliminate them from the population in order to raise the overall level of pleasure? - Jef _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Feb 1 22:44:10 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 23:44:10 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself In-Reply-To: References: <380-220072411391841@M2W020.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <56782.86.130.30.87.1170369850.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Happiness also involves more parts of our being than just sensual pleasure. I think that the more aspects of ourselves we add to the positive experience, the more valuable it becomes. At the lowest level we have simple sensual pleasures, little more than stimuli that activate our experience of pleasures. As they become more complex more and more of our brains get involved in the enjoyment - a delicious meal involves both smell, taste and touch sensations but also the knowledge and emotions tied to the food (ah, the peas of the Po valley, they remind me of that trip to Milano...) and the likely complex setting of the meal. Even greater enjoyment can be created by participating in the experience as an actor and not just an observer: the dinner company talk over the meal, maybe I cook it. The highest forms of happiness occur when we are participating totally in something and using all our being to bring it about, be it cooking, climbing a mountain or solving a problem. At this level the pleasure sensation becomes less important than the happiness: it is actually not very pleasant to sit up all night hacking away at some great piece of code, but the happiness it brings is indeed supreme and lasting. Happiness tend to accompany doing things that makes us extend ourselves as beings. >From this perspective striving for happiness might be both a goal and a means. It is the transhuman thing to do. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Feb 1 23:17:22 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:17:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] random links In-Reply-To: <003f01c74565$18558620$d7971f97@archimede> Message-ID: <200702012322.l11NMWOg012779@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Thanks for the links scerir! > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of scerir > Subject: [extropy-chat] random links > > The air we (italians) breath > http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/the-air-we-breathe/ Ewww. Much of that might be Diesel particulates. I agree they should be illegal in cities. > The worst possible move > http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/01/28/the-worst-possible-move/ Cool, thanks, I will see if I can find one that breaks 50. It is unusual to have a chess position that is so open that there are 50 possible moves. Together with the stated constraints, this is a difficult puzzle indeed. > Prime numbers peep in. ... > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212084 But this link isn't about prime numbers, its Brukner paper: Information and fundamental elements of the structure of quantum theory Do post the one about primes if you can find it please. {8-] spike From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Feb 1 23:46:32 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:46:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasure as ultimate measure of morality [Was: Pleasing Oneself] In-Reply-To: <979346.71747.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <979346.71747.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey - Would you please send to this list in plain-text format? Otherwise, it takes some time to reformat and properly quote your text. - Jef A B wrote: > Some time ago Jef Albright wrote: >> "Seeking pleasure is ammoral , but tends to correlate with activity that we would assess as "good"." > > I would go so far as to say that achieving pleasure > for oneself is, per se, beyond just being ammoral. > I would argue that achieving pleasure for oneself > is positively moral. It is only incidental that the > entity that appears to sense and enjoy the pleasure > is the one who is commonly considered to be "oneself". > IOW, pleasing oneself is a special case of a more general > condition (what Jef might consider "greater scope") of > the whole of sentient beings experiencing pleasure. > That's not to say that all sentients have a desire > to please any sentient apart from themselves - as > many examples will testify. However, I think that > most humans would want other sentients to experience > pleasure, all else being equal. IMHO, pleasing oneself > only becomes arguably immoral (or ammoral) when the > cost of the self-pleasure is a loss of pleasure in > other sentients or a gain in suffering of other sentients. --------------------------------------------------------------- > To clear up any possible confusion, I did > not intend this post or thread name to >?exclusively imply?sexual self-satisfaction, > but rather any activity that?provides oneself > with pleasure; from?watching TV?to decoding > the Universe. Although in principle, I don't > see anything?morally wrong with sexual > self-satisfaction. Perhaps I should have been > more careful in choosing a subject title. Oh > well,?maybe it will?generate more?thread > attention ;-) ?Anyway, moving on ... ? > Jef writes: >> So I understand that you believe pleasure is the ultimate measure of morality. ? > *Subjective* pleasure {as well as capacity for > subjective pleasure} (in it's myriad forms to > include those which some people would consider > distasteful) over the "largest scope" -meaning? > the highest number of sentient beings regardless > of their station of existence, yes. What do you mean by "subjective" pleasure? Is there some kind of pleasure that is not subjective? I think pleasure/happiness/eudaimonia has many variations. Of course you realize that I think these sensations and assessments are only indirect indicators and not fundamental measures of "good". But I wonder if you think you understand that statement of mine that you felt strongly enough about to disagree with? So if I'm to understand why you think pleasure is the ultimate measure of morality, I need to understand what you think pleasure is. Of course, if in your thinking there are many kinds of pleasure, then we'll need to understand what they all have in common before we can say that there is something that is worthy of calling fundamental or ultimate. I don't need to do this because I consider "pleasure" in all its manifestations to be only indications from a subjective system reporting that things are going well (whether those outside the system would agree or not.) To me, pleasure is only the vector of the feedback loop, but says nothing directly about the goodness of the output of the system. Do you see pleasure as being measured on a unipolar, or bipolar axis? As you probably know, many people consider pleasure and pain to be polar opposites on the same scale; do you agree with this? Or do you see pleasure as ranging from about zero (little or no pleasure) to some high value corresponding with extreme ecstacy? And just to add another calibration point, you would consider ecstacy to a higher moral good than, for example, the calm satisfaction of completing a hard day's work, or the joy of mother seeing her newborn after hours of painful labor, or...you get the idea. This leads me to ask you where you moral theory leads you in the case of someone in extreme pain from a terminal disease. Would it be morally better for them to die in order to increase net pleasure in the world, or do you see them as contributing some small absolute amount of pleasure (despite their pain) which would be lost if they died? I'm glad to see we seem to be using "scope" in the same way. ? > Jef writes: >> I understand you are claiming that morality is >> measured with respect to pleasure integrated over >> all sentient beings, right? Do you also integrate >> over all time? So that which provides the greatest >> pleasure for the greatest number for the greatest >> time is the most moral? ? > Fundamentally, yes. However, this does not necessarily > imply that one must inexorably commit immoral acts > against other sentients in order to achieve this goal. I understand that you claim that pleasure is the ultimate measure of morality, but your statement above seems to say that you think that there may be other measures of morality (possibly higher) that might come into conflict with increasing pleasure. Doesn't your statement above seem to contradict your thesis? ? > Jef writes: >> I assume you acknowledge the necessity of some short >> term sacrifice of pleasure in order to achieve the >> greater pleasure. How do you see that working in >> principle? ? > Well, we are dealing in abstract ideals and not in the > grit of reality. However, achieving the "greater pleasure" > does not inevitably require imposing suffering, or a loss > of pleasure, or a?loss of capacity for pleasure?on any > *other* sentient beings. For example, if 99% of hard > working Americans chose to donate $30.00 to the advancement > of altruistic AGI, well... good things would probably happen.? ? > Now donating that $30.00 may necessitate that a donor remain > at his crappy job that he hates, but he always retains the > choice not to donate and not to work, if he so chooses. It's > a willful sacrifice. It almost seems as if you saying that the freedom to choose is a greater moral good than actual pleasure (which of course I would agree with). So if you believe that the level of the world's pleasure over extended time is the ultimate measure of morality, would you therefore consider it a moral improvement if all currently living humans would sacrifice their current standard of living and invest their time and resources soley to increase the pleasure of future generations? This form of leverage should certainly result in greater pleasure for greater numbers over greater time, but it would violate many of my moral values. If you feel somehow that extrapolating to the future in such a way is not valid, then how about this scenario: Would your belief in pleasure as the ultimate measure of morality compel us to to adopt a form of willing slavery, where some people (say selected by lottery) would enjoy the labors of people who would otherwise be unemployed and unproductive members of society, as long as the "slaves" are given a constant supply of pleasure-inducing drugs? It seems all parties could have more pleasure in such a system, although at loss of what I consider greater moral values. Yes, these examples are extreme, but it's at the edges where we find out it a concept really holds up to its promise. ? > Jef writes: >> Based on your reasoning, if 50 percent of the population >> are feeling less than average pleasure, would it be a moral >> good to eliminate them from the population in order to raise >> the overall level of pleasure? ? > No, definitely not. A more moral action would be to lift the > lower 50% out of their unhappiness. Perhaps I could make my > original statement more applicable by saying: > Pleasing oneself only becomes arguably immoral or ammoral?when > the cost of the self-pleasure is a loss of pleasure in other > sentients, a gain in suffering of other sentients, or a loss > of capacity for pleasure in other sentients. So, based on your statement above, would you reason that it would be a moral good to increase the population of sentients as much as possible, despite the unavoidable economic difficulties so that these poor people could exist like many other poor people in the world, each of them adding an additional increment of pleasure? If, as I'm guessing, you're not comfortable with decreasing *or* increasing the number of sentients purely in order to increase the level of pleasure, then wouldn't this seem to tell us that increasing pleasure is not truly your fundamental and ultimate measure of morality? ? > In this case, if you were to kill the lower 50% you'd be > bringing their capacity for subjective pleasure down to zero, > in addition to eliminating whatever low level of pleasure that > they did manage to experience to begin with. ? Jeffrey, I've tried to show you some of the obvious inconsistencies in a system of morality based on pleasure. You're in good company as many philosophers have held to the same idea. You can find many arguments pro and con if you search "utilitarian ethics", and it's ultimately incoherent in my opinion. I could give you a more coherent view of morality, but you haven't asked why I made the statement that statement that you find disagreeable. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 2 00:09:29 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:09:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself In-Reply-To: <56782.86.130.30.87.1170369850.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <380-220072411391841@M2W020.mail2web.com> <56782.86.130.30.87.1170369850.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Anders wrote: > The highest forms of happiness occur when we are participating > totally in > something and using all our being to bring it about, be it cooking, > climbing a mountain or solving a problem. At this level the > pleasure > sensation becomes less important than the happiness: it is actually > not > very pleasant to sit up all night hacking away at some great piece > of > code, but the happiness it brings is indeed supreme and lasting. > Happiness > tend to accompany doing things that makes us extend ourselves as > beings. > > >From this perspective striving for happiness might be both a goal > and a > means. It is the transhuman thing to do. Anders, I agree with your point, similar to that expressed so well by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and called flow. I would, however, encourage people to avoid the traditional default concepts of goals and means, which, despite their comforting familiarity, carry an implicit assumption of a dualistic self. It's more coherent and conducive to longer-range thinking to view this flow experience as the natural and expected condition of a reflexive system that is fully expressing its values. Rather than the paradoxical collapsing of goals and means that you mentioned, dictated by classical thinking in this area (never mind what priveledged party is supposedly able to observe and assess these goals and means) we, and all other agents act in order to minimize the perceived difference between our values and the environment. Goals are only an epiphenomenon. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 2 00:28:58 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:28:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Outlook spell checking! Message-ID: Does anyone here know why Outlook 2007 would go through all the motions of checking and correcting spelling errors and then just go ahead and send the original uncorrected text? It's been happening to me for a while and it's embarrassing. Yeah, I know "Don't use Outlook." I'm working on that... - Jef From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 2 02:01:43 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:01:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070201210037.03b72878@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:40 PM 2/1/2007 +0100, you wrote: >On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 02:26:26PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > I welcome arguments on the reality of cold fusion with anyone who is > > familiar with the relevant scientific literature. > >You got me sufficiently interested to try the book (unfortunately, >it's ridiculously expensive on amazon.de). Try interlibrary loan if the local library does not have a copy. Keith Henson From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 2 02:22:57 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:22:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Indifference (was Coin Flip Paradox) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9980.25050.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > Think about it (and you too, Jef)... > > On what logical grounds can proposition A imply or > entail proposition B? > > A: "No information is available about the true > probabilities of the two > possible outcomes X and Y." > > B: "Outcomes X and Y are therefore equiprobable." > > Does A imply B, logically? I think not! If you or > Jef can show me > otherwise then please do. Because an empty scale will balance too, Gordon. Let me try to explain it to you from a frequentist point of view. I will assume that you are a very detailed oriented person because if you weren't, I don't think we would be having this conversation. So let me get a few key assumptions out of the way: 1. P(X) is the unknown *true probability* of X. (The Bayesian in me shudders at this, but I will try to argue this one from a frequentist stand point.) 2. X and Y are mutually exclusive. i.e. P(X|Y)=P(Y|X)=0 3. If X doesn't happen, then Y will happen or put another way, Y is the "non-occurance" of X or Y = X'. i.e. P(Y)=P(X')=1-P(X) 4. There exists a set S of all possible events and their "non-occurances" that may or may not happen i.e. {E1, E2, E3 ... En} & {E1',E2',E3' ... En'}. This gigantic, possibly infinite, set would include very rare events like you winning the lotto or getting hit by lightning and very likely events like the sun rising tomorrow or you taking a breath in the next hour as well as everything in between like whether a traffic light will turn red before you get to an intersection or not. 5. Every element Ei of S has a characteristic *true probability* P(Ei) that governs how likely it is to occur as well as a converse probability P(Ei')=1-P(Ei) which governs how likely it is to NOT occur. 6. Event X and its converse Y are elements of the set S. Now that we have all our assumptions explicitly stated, let's get to the logic. Now let us say that we want to try to estimate the *true probability* of X but we have no data regarding what that probability might be. So let us assign the probability of X a random variable P(X). Now we have no idea what the shape of the distribution of P(X) might be but we do know that it is a real number that lies somewhere on the interval [0,1]. So now what a frequentist would do is start drawing pairs of elements as samples from the set S and measure their *true probabilities*. Lets say on the first draw you get E1 and E2 with P1 and P2 of .0001 and .75 respectively. Then on the next draw you get E3 and E1' with P3 and P1' of .985 and .9999. Then on the next you draw you get E2' and E3' with probability .25 and .015 repectively. Next you calculate the average of the probabilities that you get in each draw: Average of draw 1: (.0001+.75)/2=.37505 Average of draw 2: (.985+.9999)/2=.99245 Average of draw 3: (.25+.015)/2=.1325 Now you calculate the mean average you get with your draws: (.37505+.99245+.1325)/3= .5 Now admittedly I rigged this particular example to come out at exactly .5 but do you not see that if the set of everything that can happen or not includes every event and its converse then for every probability P(E) there exists P'(E')=1-P(E). So if you take enough samples of specific events and measure their average probability (relative frequency at infinity) you cannot help but get .5 as the average probability of SOMETHING happening at all. This is guaranteed by the Law of Large Numbers and the Central Limit Theorem just like Von Mises' results were. So if you don't have any information regarding what the *true probability* of a specific event is, then it only makes sense that you assign it the average probability of *all possible events* or .5 because you will be within one standard deviation of the *true probability* 2/3rds of the time. That concludes my sloppy logical proof of the Principle of Indifference using frequentist rationale. I like Jef, am tired of discussing the Priciple of Indifference with you. If this doesn't convince you, you will just have to go through life not believeing in the Principle of Indifference. :) Other topics in the category of probability/randomness however are fine. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "If we all did the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves." - Thomas Edison ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Feb 2 01:28:10 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:28:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Immortal - unmortal, amortal, emortal Message-ID: <380-2200725212810225@M2W007.mail2web.com> I was looking over a couple of posts from times past (2002) and came accross this cut and paste at the Immortality website: ">>gts wrote: >>>Robert Bradbury has suggested in light of this thread that we should >>>coin a new term to replace "immortality." I think it's a grand idea. >>On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >>I think the word you may be looking for is 'amortal'. [snip] >Robert Bradbury writes: >I'll note that Damien has suggested in other messages 'emortal'. >In thinking about the evolution of possible vectors further it >seems to me one might also use 'unmortal' (in more the English >sense than the derived greek sense)." What was the outcome? I like emortal. Thoughts? Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Feb 2 04:16:46 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 23:16:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Immortal - unmortal, amortal, emortal In-Reply-To: <380-2200725212810225@M2W007.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200725212810225@M2W007.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 2/1/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > > What was the outcome? I like emortal. Thoughts? I think its a question of taste. There was a similar discussion on the GRG list sometime in the last few months and there were many points of view raised (immortal, indefinite longevity, unlimited lifespan, ...). I don't think it will be resolved until someone with the "throw weight" to implant a term in many minds uses it in a number of public forums. (And uses the "term" in a sense that all can agree on.) You could probably compare this topic with the discussion that astronomers have about what to classify Pluto as (planet, minor planet, failed planet, KBO, ...). At least the astronomers know precisely *what* they are talking about. In the transhumanist ... human collective mindset range there is much less precision over exactly what we mean [1]. Robert 1. Taking as a simple examples the divisions over whether one wants ones body+mind, mind alone, contents of ones mind, ones DNA, ones DNA+ones mind, ones enhanced DNA+ones enhanced mind, ones recreated DNA, ones recreated mind, ... to survive for period X where X may range from hundreds to trillions of years. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Fri Feb 2 04:31:42 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:31:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Immortal - unmortal, amortal, emortal In-Reply-To: References: <380-2200725212810225@M2W007.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <45C2BEAE.2000908@pobox.com> We could just call ourselves the Q. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 2 04:39:40 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:39:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Immortal - unmortal, amortal, emortal In-Reply-To: <380-2200725212810225@M2W007.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <83316.76280.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: > >Robert Bradbury writes: > >I'll note that Damien has suggested in other > messages 'emortal'. > > >In thinking about the evolution of possible vectors > further it > >seems to me one might also use 'unmortal' (in more > the English > >sense than the derived greek sense)." > > What was the outcome? I like emortal. Thoughts? Hey Natasha, I have a late entry: 'optimortal'. As in you die when you opt to. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "If we all did the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves." - Thomas Edison ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From jonkc at att.net Fri Feb 2 05:08:52 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:08:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org><45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com><001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com><001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer><001d01c74560$2abee900$dd084e0c@MyComputer><002d01c74623$8d616b00$a2054e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com><006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> Ben Goertzel" > Beaudette's book gives an excellent guide Excellent? How did you determine the book was excellent ? What reason do you have for thinking even any of the facts it touts actually happened as advertised? I have no reason to think any of the experiments he describes were even were performed, much less done competently and honestly. The only thing I know about this Beaudette person is that he knows how to type. > to the scientific literature on the topic. There is no literature on this topic, there is only pulp fiction. > You are ignorant on this topic. I am less so. Having encyclopedic knowledge of Bullshit is no virtue. And I have my faults but I'll tell you one thing, I'm not astronomically gullible. > I have more interesting things to do with my time No you do not; not if you have the time to read junk science. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Fri Feb 2 05:21:20 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:21:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com><006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer> <20070201194006.GE21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <011001c74689$fd32d7a0$ed044e0c@MyComputer> Eugen* Leitl Wrote: > I concur with John that it's >99% likely it's sloppy experimentation I think you are being far too optimistic, or perhaps you were just being kind. Either Science and Nature are full of shit and have been for 17 years, and all the most cited Physics Journals are full of shit, and all the Nobel Prize Physicists (except Brian Josephson) are full of shit, OR, its Mr. Beaudette who has an excess of fecal material. I wouldn't give you a billion to one odds. Save your money Eugen. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 2 06:07:58 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:07:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <011001c74689$fd32d7a0$ed044e0c@MyComputer> References: <3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com> <006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer> <20070201194006.GE21677@leitl.org> <011001c74689$fd32d7a0$ed044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070202000010.025fc550@satx.rr.com> At 12:21 AM 2/2/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: >Either Science and Nature are full of shit and have been for 17 years, >and all the most cited Physics Journals are full of shit, and all the Nobel >Prize Physicists (except Brian Josephson) are full of shit John, how do you square this absolute and apoplectic certainty concerning the wisdom of these gatekeepers with their attitude toward, say, potential drexlerian molecular manufacture (something you've defended with equal spirited vehemence for more than a decade even as Nobelists like Smalley jeered and denounced it), or the value of cryonics (has this topic been received enthusiastically by the arbiters of all true knowledge?), or the prospect of a technological Singularity? How full of shit do these journals and editors have to be to spurn ideas you apparently embrace as well-founded? Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 2 06:52:55 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:52:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Pleasing Oneself In-Reply-To: <979346.71747.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <197215.32923.qm@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- A B wrote: > To clear up any possible confusion, I did not > intend this post or thread name to exclusively imply > sexual self-satisfaction, but rather any activity > that provides oneself with pleasure; from watching > TV to decoding the Universe. Although in principle, > I don't see anything morally wrong with sexual > self-satisfaction. FWIW: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/13/1578 Relevant quote: "However, high ejaculation frequency was related to decreased risk of total prostate cancer." In my opinion, it would be morally wrong not to. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "If we all did the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves." - Thomas Edison ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 From scerir at libero.it Fri Feb 2 07:29:28 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:29:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] random links References: <200702012322.l11NMWOg012779@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <002301c7469b$e017cd80$64bf1f97@archimede> "spike": > > Prime numbers peep in. > > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212084 > But this link isn't about prime numbers, [...] Yes, Zelinger's paper is about information, quantum, and related philosophies. But the quote below comes from that paper. "How to define the total information content of more complex systems? In a n-dimensional Hilbert space, one needs n^2 -1 real parameters to specify a general density matrix rho, which must be hermitean and have Trace(rho) = 1. Since measurements within a particular basis set can yield only n - 1 independent probabilities (the sum of all probabilities for all possible outcomes in an individual experiment is one), one needs n + 1 distinct basis sets to provide the required total number of n^2 - 1 independent probabilities. Ivanovic (1981) showed that the required number n + 1 of unbiased basis sets indeed exists if n is a prime number." The existence of unbiased basis sets is interesting both for fundamental reasons (is a quantum mechanics without probability amplitudes possible?) and for the construction of quantum-information protocols (key distributions based on a large number of unbiased basis sets may have advantages over key distributions based on qubits). So prime numbers peep in both for fundamental reasons and for 'technological' reasons. (But at least the latter is difficult stuff for me). s. From ben at goertzel.org Fri Feb 2 13:41:45 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:41:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> References: <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org><45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com><001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com><001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer><001d01c74560$2abee900$dd084e0c@MyComputer><002d01c74623$8d616b00$a2054e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com><006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer> <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2007, at 12:08 AM, John K Clark wrote: > Ben Goertzel" > >> Beaudette's book gives an excellent guide > > Excellent? How did you determine the book was excellent ? It presented complex information clearly, and served as a good guide to the more technical research literature (published journal papers, and conference papers), which I also dug into a bit. For links into the literature, a starting-point is: http://www.lenr-canr.org/ http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html > What reason do you > have for thinking even any of the facts it touts actually happened as > advertised? I agree, it could be the case that dozens of researchers at various university labs over the last 17 years have falsified their CF experiments and corresponding journal and conference publications, through dishonesty or mass insanity. It could also be the case that the Moon landing was falsified, and humans never really went to the moon. I never saw the Moon landing myself in person, nor personally talked to anyone who did -- I just watched it on TV, and read about it. I could be a brain floating in a vat filled with LSD, cayenne pepper and cream cheese, hallucinating I'm sitting at a desk typing on a computer... etc. etc. If CF is wrong, I don't think mass dishonesty or insanity is the best explanation, actually. The published CF experiments that appear to confirm the production of excess heat, have been done using a wide variety of experimental setups and calorimetric apparatus. It is certainly possible that there are strange, systematic errors in this wide variety of calorimetric apparatus, which are not understood by any current practitioners of calorimetry. However, based on my review of the literature, this seems less likely to me than the actual reality of the CF phenomenon. I am not sure why you find it so bizarre to imagine that some kind of non-binary nuclear fusion (multiple nuclei fusing, rather than pairwise fusion) could exist, when the right materials are sufficiently compressed together in the right conditions and enough charge is passed through them. There is certainly nothing in basic physics that prohibits this, as our current understanding of nuclear physics is based on a lot of crude approximations. Perturbation theory is not exact, and so far as I know no one has done any extremely detailed computer simulations of the conditions that exist inside the cell during CF experiments. -- Ben From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Feb 2 13:48:32 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 05:48:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nanomachine In-Reply-To: <002301c7469b$e017cd80$64bf1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <200702021349.l12DnDfU013931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> It isn't clear what this guy is talking about, but sounds interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/02/01/nanomachine.reut/index.html spike From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 2 14:35:27 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:35:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:41:45AM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > For links into the literature, a starting-point is: > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/ > http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html I'm reading through it (what's available as full text, that is), and it's appallingly bad science so far. Hopefully I'll find more time to explain why this rubs me the wrong way. Here's a 17 page excerpt from Beaudette, if one wants to see whether the book is worth buying: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From scerir at libero.it Fri Feb 2 14:13:15 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:13:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] nanomachine References: <200702021349.l12DnDfU013931@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000e01c746d4$4b195170$d1b81f97@archimede> > It isn't clear what this guy is talking about, but sounds interesting: > http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/02/01/nanomachine.reut/index.html > spike See also http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/1/26 http://www.chem.ed.ac.uk/staff/leigh.html but, wait, there is another virtual paramachine here! http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0701641 (I do not remember the name of the extrope who was interested in those Casimir machine) From amara at amara.com Fri Feb 2 15:02:39 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:02:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Penn and Teller on the Moon Hoax Message-ID: Penn and Teller on the Moon Hoax http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so2FmHB-R58&eurl= (hilarious!) Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 2 15:45:08 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:45:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indifference (was Coin Flip Paradox) In-Reply-To: <9980.25050.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <9980.25050.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A couple of things, Stu: 1) We're getting ahead of ourselves here; you posted at least two or three messages in the last two or three days to which I have not yet fully responded. As a result I think you are operating under the false assumption, among other things, that I am here trying to defend frequentism against Bayesianism. I am not. However I was defending frequentism against what I perceived as your false criticisms, e.g., your strange idea that contrary to theory, frequencies "orbit chaotically". The frequency theory deserves a fair hearing. So does the propensity theory, for that matter, which we've still barely touched on. 2) As I mentioned yesterday in private email, I worry that people here are getting annoyed with these debates about probability theory, mainly because Eugen has rung the warning bell not just once but twice now. I don't agree with that style of list management. As far as I can tell we are not flaming each other or doing anything else inappropriate and so we should be free to continue without questions and interruptions by the list managers. However I suspect nobody really cares what I think about list management. It might be time to drop the subject or take it elsewhere. I'm disappointed about this, but again this isn't about me. A similar thread exists on Ben's AGI list, on which this subject is welcome in so much as it relates to programming AI, so perhaps that would be the place to take it. Are you a subscriber there? In the meantime I've got you on the CC. That being said, I appreciate your contributions and your post deserves an answer... > That concludes my sloppy logical proof of the > Principle of Indifference using frequentist rationale. Because of 2) above I am reluctant to go into detail here as to the reason any such argument must fail, except to remind you that the frequency theory is an objectivist, non-epistemic account of probability in which the epistemic principle of indifference is irrelevant and nonsensical. That is, under frequentism the principle it is not even untrue, much less true. A proper proof would be by formal logic, (an epistemic endeavor), which I maintain is impossible. You simply cannot prove that total ignorance about the true state of nature gives one any real justification for assigning equal (or unequal) probabilities to each of the possible states of nature. This is so because ignorance does not imply knowledge. So when we invoke the principle of indifference, we do so without any formal justification. > If this doesn't convince you, you will just have to go through life not > believeing > in the Principle of Indifference. :) In that case I would go through life in good company, including the company of subjective Bayesians who know better than to imagine logical truth where none exists. -gts From jonkc at att.net Fri Feb 2 17:51:05 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:51:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org><45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com><001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com><001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer><001d01c74560$2abee900$dd084e0c@MyComputer><002d01c74623$8d616b00$a2054e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com><006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer><001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <00fe01c746f2$e8c62c40$10084e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > It could also be the case that the Moon landing was falsified, and > humans never really went to the moon. I believe people went to the moon for the same reason I believe most of what I read in Science and Nature, people I know and respect vouch for it. I've never heard of any of these cold fusion people, and none in the scientific community that I admire seems to have heard of them either, much less respect them. As I said before I have no reason to thing Mr. Beaudette isn't just a man with a typewriter. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Fri Feb 2 17:52:16 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:52:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <3cf171fe0702010918g44819bb2mccb012150b21ed5e@mail.gmail.com><006101c7462e$f5291a20$a2054e0c@MyComputer><20070201194006.GE21677@leitl.org><011001c74689$fd32d7a0$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202000010.025fc550@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00ff01c746f2$e93b0e20$10084e0c@MyComputer> Damien Broderick" > John, how do you square this absolute and apoplectic certainty concerning > the wisdom of these gatekeepers with their attitude toward, say, potential > drexlerian molecular manufacture It's the difference between having a theory and claiming an experimental result. Drexler said, I do not believe my ideas contradict the known laws of Physics so I believe it will actually happen someday; if they had said the same about cold fusion I might not have agreed but I could at least have some respect for them. If Drexler had said "not only is Nanotechnology theoretically possible but I already invented it 17 years ago, and it's only because of an evil conspiracy among all the top sciences journal on the planet that prevents this Good News from being well known" then I would say Drexler is full of shit too. Fortunately Drexler said no such thing. > or the value of cryonics And if Cryonics advocates had said they have been freezing people and bringing them back to life for 17 years with no problem then they too would have fecal material up to their eyebrows. John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Feb 2 17:39:13 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:39:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200702021756.l12HuwqI029539@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:41:45AM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > For links into the literature, a starting-point is: > > > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/ > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html On the LENR-CANR site is the following comment: Appeal to readers: spread the word and help bring about a rebirth of interest in cold fusion. This includes responses from the present and previous editors of the Scientific American. Hmmmm. Another puzzler is a comment by A.C. Clarke: Free e-book Cold Fusion and The Future. The future might be better than you think. A. C. Clarke says this book calls for "a reliable Mind-Deboggler." What did he mean by that comment? It can be interpreted a number of ways. 1. Clarke read in the book: the cold fusion community needs "a reliable Mind-Deboggler." 2. Clarke read the book and now needs "a reliable Mind-Deboggler" because he is so amazed. 3. The writers have boggled minds to produce such a book. etc. The site doesn't do much to convince real scientists to study this field methinks. spike From scerir at libero.it Fri Feb 2 18:00:51 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:00:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] random links References: <200702012322.l11NMWOg012779@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <002301c7469b$e017cd80$64bf1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <000401c746f4$13eca970$66bf1f97@archimede> > So prime numbers peep in both for fundamental reasons > and for 'technological' reasons. (But at least the latter > is difficult stuff for me). > s. There is another connection between QT and prime numbers, that seems even more interesting. http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/highlights/random-m/ s. " My approach to understanding the full implications of G?del's work is mathematically analogous to the ideas of thermodynamics and Boltzmann and statistical mechanics. You might say, not completely seriously, that what I'm proposing is 'thermodynamical epistemology' !" - G. Chaitin From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 2 18:46:48 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:46:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] random links In-Reply-To: <000401c746f4$13eca970$66bf1f97@archimede> References: <200702012322.l11NMWOg012779@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <002301c7469b$e017cd80$64bf1f97@archimede> <000401c746f4$13eca970$66bf1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070202124531.02297ad8@satx.rr.com> At 07:00 PM 2/2/2007 +0100, Serafino wrote: >There is another connection between QT and prime >numbers, that seems even more interesting. >http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/highlights/random-m/ That's really amazing. Of course mathematics starts by abstracting from observed physics, so maybe it's not *so* surprising... Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 2 20:28:00 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:28:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indifference (was Coin Flip Paradox) In-Reply-To: References: <9980.25050.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This little blurb is so cogent that it must be mentioned here: "Evidently we require [in order to correctly invoke the supposed principle of indifference] not mere absence of knowledge of reasons favoring one alternative over another, but knowledge of the absence of such reasons." Some people confuse 'absence of knowledge of reasons' with 'knowledge of absence of reasons'. http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/indifference-principle.php -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 2 23:54:57 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 17:54:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> At 03:35 PM 2/2/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html > >I'm reading through it (what's available as full >text, that is), and it's appallingly bad science so far. Have you looked at papers by Peter Hagelstein yet? Damien Broderick From ben at goertzel.org Sat Feb 3 00:56:11 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:56:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Eugen, Could you elaborate on what you feel is bad about some particular papers? The replications that Beaudette focuses on are the ones by the following researchers: * McKubre * Oriani * Miles * Arata so critiques of their work would be of the most interest to me. I appreciate very much critical comments about the actual science... -- Ben On Feb 2, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:35 PM 2/2/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: > >>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html >> >> I'm reading through it (what's available as full >> text, that is), and it's appallingly bad science so far. > > Have you looked at papers by Peter Hagelstein yet? > > Damien Broderick > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 3 02:58:03 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:58:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indifference (was Coin Flip Paradox) In-Reply-To: <62c14240702021843i29522bccsa0e0980fc1c389d1@mail.gmail.com> References: <9980.25050.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240702021843i29522bccsa0e0980fc1c389d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:43:51 -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > Your sentence construction requires parsing of very long strings to > establish idea chunks. These chunks are not easily disambiguated from > the adjacent chunks, so the whole paragraph tends to blur into a less > comprehensible moire of ideas. Ugh! Sorry if my writing is so unclear, Mike. I'll try to work on that! > I'm curious, do you know of a less ambiguous language? Do you think > there would be less language-inherent confusion if you were to explain > these ideas using Lojban++ I don't know Lojban++ but I am certified in C++. I don't think I could discuss philosophy in C++ though. :) >> "Evidently we require [in order to correctly invoke the supposed >> principle of indifference] not mere absence of knowledge of reasons >> favoring one >> alternative over another, but knowledge of the absence of such reasons." >> >> Some people confuse 'absence of knowledge of reasons' with 'knowledge of >> absence of reasons'. The point that author was making is that the principle of indifference might be logically valid in circumstances in which there are *truly* no reasons to prefer or expect one outcome over another, but not in circumstances in which we only *think* there are no such reasons (as is almost always if not absolutely always the case in which people try to invoke it). Does that make sense? > Because of 2) above I am reluctant to go into detail here as to the > reason any such argument must fail, except to remind you that the > frequency > theory is an objectivist, non-epistemic account of probability in which > the epistemic principle of indifference is irrelevant and nonsensical. Simply stated, if the principle of indifference could be proved valid using frequentist arguments as Stu suggested, then frequentists would be objective bayesians instead of frequentists. :) Epistemic concepts such as the principle of indifference have no traction under frequentism, because frequentists eschew epistemic interpretations of probability in favor of their brand of objectivism. Frequentists believe probabilities exist 'out there' in objective reality as opposed to 'in here' in our subjective assessments. -gts From pj at pj-manney.com Sat Feb 3 06:50:23 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:50:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Wikilobbying" Message-ID: <14773075.870081170485421155.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >From the font of funny, Mr. Stephen Colbert's take on what happens when democracy comes to information technology: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=81454 PJ From scerir at libero.it Sat Feb 3 08:07:58 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:07:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] random links References: <200702012322.l11NMWOg012779@andromeda.ziaspace.com><002301c7469b$e017cd80$64bf1f97@archimede><000401c746f4$13eca970$66bf1f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202124531.02297ad8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003a01c7476a$6b23c400$06931f97@archimede> > >http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/highlights/random-m/ > > That's really amazing. Of course mathematics starts by abstracting > from observed physics, so maybe it's not *so* surprising... > > Damien Broderick In quantum chaology, I suppose, the usual quantal principles of stability (via quantization; via bounded operators; via fractal behaviours of wavefunctions in space and in time; via revivals; etc.) and evolution (via essential randomness; via finiteness of available information; via contextuality; via nonlocality; etc.) must hold. I would not be surprised if, sometimes, principles of stability and evolution are at work in the kingdom of mathematics. Maybe the question is not only about the 'unreasonable' effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html but also the 'unreasonable' effectiveness of natural sciences in mathematics [1]. s. [1] "Nature is earlier than man, but man is earlier than natural science". -Von Weizsaecker From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 3 10:48:59 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:48:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 05:54:57PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > Have you looked at papers by Peter Hagelstein yet? Yes, but my beef is with the experiments. I'm not sure there's an anomaly to explain. What's needed is experimental proof of excess heat. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinsummaryofi.pdf contains plenty of claims which are trivial to reproduce. Each one of these claims would be enough for a Nobel prize. This is pretty old stuff, why did they stop? You don't need a large budget, and you could do it in your cellar. So why did they stop? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From ben at goertzel.org Sat Feb 3 11:44:02 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 06:44:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> <20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org> Eugen, The story that the researchers tell is as follows: 1) The experiments are simple but hard to get right, because when you run the cell for weeks on end, gunk tends to build up inside them so a lot of care needs to be taken 2) In most variants of the experiment, the phenomenon only occurs a certain % of the time. Arata's set-up seems to be an exception, but his set-up is not so easy to run in your garage. The variation appears to be related to the batch of palladium used, which suggests it has to do with impurities in the palladium. So, you have a phenomenon that requires extremely careful set-up, takes a long time to run, and succeeds only a certain percentage of the time. And then, once you've done it and gotten positive results, everyone laughs at you and calls you a MEGA-BULLSHITter anyway... Let's say that you, Eugen Leitl, took the time to replicate the results yourself. Let's say you put in a year of part-time effort on this project, learning the boring little ways of getting the deuterium to load really densely into the palladium, keeping your cell running cleanly and so forth. Then, at the end of the year, what would your result be? Well, it would be just another paper to add to the existing list of replications. How would one more replication, by you, change the situation any? The re-counting of McKubre's experiments in Beaudette's book are instructive, for example. -- Ben On Feb 3, 2007, at 5:48 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 05:54:57PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > >> Have you looked at papers by Peter Hagelstein yet? > > Yes, but my beef is with the experiments. I'm not sure there's > an anomaly to explain. What's needed is experimental proof > of excess heat. > > http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinsummaryofi.pdf > contains plenty of claims which are trivial to reproduce. > Each one of these claims would be enough for a Nobel prize. > This is pretty old stuff, why did they stop? You don't > need a large budget, and you could do it in your cellar. > > So why did they stop? > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From george at betterhumans.com Sat Feb 3 13:17:23 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 08:17:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody Message-ID: I just got this very disturbing email from Arel. Please do what you can to help. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Arel Lucas Date: Feb 3, 2007 1:47 AM Subject: Keith Taken into Custody To: arellu at gmail.com Writing to myself and bc'ing you all so as not to compromise anybody's address. Don't think I've written any of you yet. Amost too tired to type. Running as fast as I can since around 3 or 3:30 this afternoon when Keith was arrested in Prescott, AZ, supposedly on the bench warrant issued by the judge in 2001 in Riverside County. I can barely think. I gave a nurse his blood pressure meds but haven't heard anything except that the desk clerk told me he had been booked and was in a single cell this evening. So I hope he's safe. The death threats continued unabated, and his last safe house had been visited by police, so we were seeking lawyers and talking about where to go when. They stopped the car of the 2 I own that he usually drives (he's still bankrupt and owns nothing). I'm running on rage. I have nothing else to give me energy. With grief or fear I'd break down. So I choose rage. Damned thing they call a democracy here in this damned country, where he was arrested, convicted and sentenced for picketing. Damned law enforcement that lies, has no brains, will do $cientology's bidding. I may have made some connections that will help him refuse extradition and have his case in California reviewed here in Arizona. The police told me that he can't have a lawyer at the hearing Monday morning, and I can't be there. I was told by a couple of people that it's no good fighting extradition, but when it's a matter of going into a $cientology-controlled jail so they can fulfill their death threats, I'll fight what I can. The damned $cientologists have carried out *every other threat they've made* against him *and* me. So I believe the death threats. Why wouldn't I? I did an oral history with someone in Canada in which she tells me of their murder of a friend of hers. I've seen the look on their smug faces. I've been snarled at by Elliot Abelson, the garbage Mafia lawyer who ran the trial in Hemet. I can use all the advice and help I can get. I will follow him to Riverside as soon as I have any clue he's on his way there. I will make as big a stink as I can. I'm trying to reach press, have given out my phone numbers to anyone who wants details. Please get press involved. If my employers can't take the heat, they'll either fire me or make me resign. The hell with them. I'll have reached the 2nd tier of social security sometime in July. If I can hold out till then I'll get a little more of a pittance. So if you talk to me and I'm mad, well, yes I am. I hate this country that arrests people for picketing and lets the terrorist $cientologists run wild. If I can get him out of jail we'll leave it--for good, if possible. I've lost faith in pretty much everyone and everything--certainly democracy, justice, law enforcement--but that was a long time ago. I'm used to it now. But I'm still mad. Arel (928) 445-4412 (323) 712-5492 From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 15:24:37 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:24:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have made a call to the Prescott jail (928) 771-3286 and yes it appears that Keith is in custody. The case number appears to be 389486 and he is slated to appear before a judge on Monday Feb 5 regarding the Riverside (Scientology related) warrant. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 3 15:45:28 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:45:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody Message-ID: I just wrote Boing Boing, giving them Arel's letter, with a link to his Wikipedia entry, in case they don't know who he is. I suggest that you Robert, also give Boing Boing he Prescott jail information. The more press, and the more information the better chances he has. I'm very worried about Keith's safety. Second thing to do: On another list, Perry suggested to make a blog, like a "Keith Blog" for people to post information. Maybe those of you bloggers can consider (quickly) being a clearinghouse for Keith information, and setting up a blog for him. I don't have experience with such a thing, and I'm pressed for time, getting ready for a trip. Any takers? Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From bkdelong at pobox.com Sat Feb 3 16:05:18 2007 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:05:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, Boing Boing would be the best place to get the word out. Someone needs to update his Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson#Current_status On 2/3/07, Amara Graps wrote: > I just wrote Boing Boing, giving them Arel's letter, with a link > to his Wikipedia entry, in case they don't know who he is. I suggest > that you Robert, also give Boing Boing he Prescott jail information. > The more press, and the more information the better chances he has. > I'm very worried about Keith's safety. > > Second thing to do: On another list, Perry suggested to make a blog, > like a "Keith Blog" for people to post information. Maybe those of you > bloggers can consider (quickly) being a clearinghouse for Keith > information, and setting up a blog for him. I don't have experience > with such a thing, and I'm pressed for time, getting ready for a > trip. Any takers? > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 16:11:07 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:11:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5366105b0702030811v1cc895f1s8b3a22871fb62a0d@mail.gmail.com> 09:50 Saturday, 3 February 2007 On 2/3/07, Amara Graps wrote: > I just wrote Boing Boing, giving them Arel's letter, with a link > to his Wikipedia entry, in case they don't know who he is. I suggest > that you Robert, also give Boing Boing he Prescott jail information. > The more press, and the more information the better chances he has. > I'm very worried about Keith's safety. > > Second thing to do: On another list, Perry suggested to make a blog, > like a "Keith Blog" for people to post information. Maybe those of you > bloggers can consider (quickly) being a clearinghouse for Keith > information, and setting up a blog for him. I don't have experience > with such a thing, and I'm pressed for time, getting ready for a > trip. Any takers? > http://www.operatingthetan.com/ hasn't had an update since 23 Sep 2005, and http://www.keithhenson.org/ hasn't had an update since 29 May 2001. Technorati doesn't show much change on "keith henson" yet. As of 09:54, nothing on boingboing either. There now exists a "Free Keith Henson" blog at http://freekeithhenson.blogspot.com/. I created this, but I'd like a volunteer to assume responsibility for it. My employer often has me on the road at short notice and sometimes away from network access. I will keep the blog until someone else volunteers. If anyone wants to join as a group author, please speak up. On the subject of wikipedia updates and blog posts, may I have permission to quote the previous emails of this thread? > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 16:39:25 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:39:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <5366105b0702030811v1cc895f1s8b3a22871fb62a0d@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0702030811v1cc895f1s8b3a22871fb62a0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Permission granted on my part. I'm not particularly "blog-literate" so feel free to cross-post where you feel it is useful. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amaraa at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 16:51:55 2007 From: amaraa at gmail.com (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:51:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody Message-ID: <013801c747b3$9d31e780$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER> > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Arel Lucas [mailto:arellu at gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:35 AM > > To: amaraa at gmail.com > > Subject: Re: FW: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > > > > There is no bail. he was convicted in California and sentenced there. > > he fled California hoping for asylum in Canada in the face of death > > threats that he would die in prison (his initial sentencing hearing > > had to be postponed when it was found that his probation report, which > > was politically influenced in the words of the probation officer, was > > in the hands of the Mafia lawyer who had directed the deputy district > > attorneiy who prosecuted his case. He is a convicted misdemeanant. > > He will be extradited unless we can find a way to refuse or fight > > extradition successfully. When he was about to deported from Canada > > he fled to a series of safe houses. Since police had shown up at the > > last one, we were trying to get representation by attorneys and find > > out his options--if he has any, but no lawyer had even called him > > back, must less agreed to represent him. Unfortunately our story > > sounds crazy. Former $ciclos will, however, back us up. > > > > We need publicity more than anything. Light needs to be shed on his > > situation before he disappears into a jail situaiton in which he has > > been told he would be killed. We need to make sure he gets his meds, > > gets proper care and exercise. I need to be able to get him materials > > for his contact lenses and get him zinc, without which he gets > > bronchitis. (His bronchitis went untreated for most of the 5 days he > > was in custody in Canada while the $ciclos were trying to find some > > way to keep him in jail or have him deported there.) I cannot see > > him. i was told I can't go to his hearing monday morning, and neither > > can he be represented by a lawyer. > > > > This arrest was engineered for a weekend so that representation > > couldn't be had even if we could find someone to believe us, and while > > the only lawyer who might help him (who has himself been ruined and > > rendered homeless by $cientology) is with his family in New Zealand > > and not available by phone or any other way except email, which he > > might not be able to get, since he is using public libraries to pick > > it up. > > > > I repeat what was said once in Chicago a long time ago by a Yippie: > > "Where is this!? Is this Amerika!?" > > > > Arel > > 928-445-4412 > > cell (323) 712-5492 From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 3 16:54:15 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:54:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody Message-ID: Nothing yet on Boing Boing. Maybe they think I'm a kook. Or maybe my crappy FastWeb ISP caused my message to be tagged as SPAM. Or maybe the topic is too dangerous for them. Others here, feel free to write Boing Boing too. http://boingboing.net/suggest.html Perhaps use the Wikipedia entry, as a suggested link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson I think that it is the clearest for an introduction to him. Anyone here on Cryonet? They should know too. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Feb 3 17:10:31 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:10:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Post of the month [Was: random links] In-Reply-To: <003a01c7476a$6b23c400$06931f97@archimede> References: <200702012322.l11NMWOg012779@andromeda.ziaspace.com><002301c7469b$e017cd80$64bf1f97@archimede><000401c746f4$13eca970$66bf1f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070202124531.02297ad8@satx.rr.com> <003a01c7476a$6b23c400$06931f97@archimede> Message-ID: I would nominate scerir as poster of the month for his paragraph below, so full of import and such high geek. - Jef scerir wrote: > > >http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/highlights/random-m/ > > > > That's really amazing. Of course mathematics starts by > abstracting > > from observed physics, so maybe it's not *so* surprising... > > > > Damien Broderick > > In quantum chaology, I suppose, the usual quantal > principles of stability (via quantization; > via bounded operators; via fractal behaviours > of wavefunctions in space and in time; via > revivals; etc.) and evolution (via essential randomness; > via finiteness of available information; via > contextuality; via nonlocality; etc.) must hold. > I would not be surprised if, sometimes, > principles of stability and evolution > are at work in the kingdom of mathematics. > Maybe the question is not only about the 'unreasonable' > effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences > http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html > but also the 'unreasonable' effectiveness of > natural sciences in mathematics [1]. > s. > > [1] > "Nature is earlier than man, > but man is earlier > than natural science". > -Von Weizsaecker > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From bkdelong at pobox.com Sat Feb 3 17:17:57 2007 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:17:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's 9am on a Sat morning in CA, where most of the staff live. And they're not exactally early-to-bed-ers ;) Give it a few. The word will spread. Send it to Declan Mc., Dan Farber's Interesting People list, Usenet and other places where Keith's plight has usually been discussed. Get the word out to enough of those people and others will begin picking up on it - that includes reporters, television, radio and podcasters who have ever talked about his fight against Scientology. We have to think like a viral marketer ;) The Net is your telephone tree. On 2/3/07, Amara Graps wrote: > Nothing yet on Boing Boing. Maybe they think I'm a kook. Or maybe my > crappy FastWeb ISP caused my message to be tagged as SPAM. Or maybe > the topic is too dangerous for them. > > Others here, feel free to write Boing Boing too. > http://boingboing.net/suggest.html Perhaps use the Wikipedia entry, > as a suggested link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson > I think that it is the clearest for an introduction to him. > > Anyone here on Cryonet? They should know too. > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Feb 3 16:46:38 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:46:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:17 AM 2/3/2007, George Dvorsky wrote: >I just got this very disturbing email from Arel. Please do what you can to >help. Keith is a long, long time friend of many and this community and we must do what we can to help him and Arel. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george at betterhumans.com Sat Feb 3 17:37:00 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:37:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: I just sent a personal plea to Cory Doctorow. Hopefully he'll be sympathetic. George From rhanson at gmu.edu Sat Feb 3 16:48:09 2007 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:48:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0JCW00JDRC09VC80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> I just mentioned Keith's troubles in passing at OvercomingBias.com Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From bkdelong at pobox.com Sat Feb 3 17:51:05 2007 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:51:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: Natasha - do we have a good, one-paragraph summary detailing Keith's contributions to the Transhumanisim movement? Might give a bit more relevance to a posting on all our respective blogs & sites. On 2/3/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > At 07:17 AM 2/3/2007, George Dvorsky wrote: > > > I just got this very disturbing email from Arel. Please do what you can to > help. > Keith is a long, long time friend of many and this community and we must do > what we can to help him and Arel. > > Natasha > > Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary > Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, > Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > wta-talk mailing list > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > > -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Feb 3 17:15:39 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:15:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203111521.0424c500@pop-server.austin.rr.com> > >Anyone here on Cryonet? They should know too. I'll foward the message now. Natasha >Amara > >-- > >Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com >INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA >Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 17:57:41 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:57:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0702030957h2af6bef7y85484985954e9b42@mail.gmail.com> 11:38 Saturday, 3 February 2007 I called the Prescott Detention Center at the number in Robert's post. The lady who answered told me they had a "Howard Henson" in custody, and that he would appear in court on Monday. More information should be available at MST 1600 Monday, 05 February 2007 from the detention center (jail) or from the court. When you call the jail: 1) Remember you deal with the police. 2) Speak politely. 3) Refer to the case number (389486) and ask for Keith by his full name, Howard Keith Henson. Things to learn: 1) Superior Court's docket, and contact information. I think this information is accurate. anyone care to test? Yavapai County Government: Clerk of Superior Court 120 S Cortez St Prescott, AZ 86303 (928) 771-3312 http://ww2.co.yavapai.az.us/departments/Sct/SctHome.asp 2) Contact information for Keith. 3) Can he receive phone calls or packages? 4) Can he receive vistors? Has he gotten his blood pressure medication? Does he need zinc, or contact lens cleaner, or something to read? (Yes, that last is serious. Jail sucks, for those of you lucky enough to remain ignorant.) Still looking for co-authors and eventually a maintainer for the Free Keith Henson blog. Discussion of the wikipedia article update happens on its Talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Henson Legal costs will mount soon. Shall we start a collection for it? Paypal account volunteers? Who else can we tell? Glenn Reynolds and Greg Burch come to mind, if they don't already know. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Feb 3 17:57:56 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:57:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith Henson Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Those who have blogs can help by posting their own concise personal statements and including links to http://freekeithhenson.blogspot.com/ as well as http://www.operatingthetan.com/, http://www.keithhenson.org/, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson. Don't rely on reposting text from other blogs, as duplicate text is increasingly ignored by search engine algorithms. Doing so will rapidly influence visibility on Google and other search engines. Please choose wording carefully as the search engine excerpts will be read widely when the entire post may not. This is about visibility, reputation and integrity. - Jef > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:54 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > > Nothing yet on Boing Boing. Maybe they think I'm a kook. Or maybe > my > crappy FastWeb ISP caused my message to be tagged as SPAM. Or maybe > the topic is too dangerous for them. > > Others here, feel free to write Boing Boing too. > http://boingboing.net/suggest.html Perhaps use the Wikipedia > entry, > as a suggested link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson > I think that it is the clearest for an introduction to him. > > Anyone here on Cryonet? They should know too. > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, > ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), > Tucson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From bkdelong at pobox.com Sat Feb 3 18:05:37 2007 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:05:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <5366105b0702030957h2af6bef7y85484985954e9b42@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0702030957h2af6bef7y85484985954e9b42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Just keep posting this info to the blog so we all are kept abreast and not just those on the lists. On 2/3/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > 11:38 Saturday, 3 February 2007 > > I called the Prescott Detention Center at the number in Robert's post. > The lady who answered told me they had a "Howard Henson" in custody, > and that he would appear in court on Monday. More information should > be available at MST 1600 Monday, 05 February 2007 from the detention > center (jail) or from the court. > > When you call the jail: > > 1) Remember you deal with the police. > 2) Speak politely. > 3) Refer to the case number (389486) and ask for Keith by his full > name, Howard Keith Henson. > > Things to learn: > > 1) Superior Court's docket, and contact information. > > I think this information is accurate. anyone care to test? > > Yavapai County Government: Clerk of Superior Court > 120 S Cortez St > Prescott, AZ 86303 > (928) 771-3312 > > http://ww2.co.yavapai.az.us/departments/Sct/SctHome.asp > > 2) Contact information for Keith. > 3) Can he receive phone calls or packages? > 4) Can he receive vistors? > > Has he gotten his blood pressure medication? Does he need zinc, or > contact lens cleaner, or something to read? (Yes, that last is > serious. Jail sucks, for those of you lucky enough to remain > ignorant.) > > Still looking for co-authors and eventually a maintainer for the Free > Keith Henson blog. Discussion of the wikipedia article update happens > on its Talk page. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Henson > > Legal costs will mount soon. Shall we start a collection for it? > Paypal account volunteers? > > Who else can we tell? Glenn Reynolds and Greg Burch come to mind, if > they don't already know. > > -- > Jay Dugger > http://jaydugger.suprglu.com > Sometimes the delete key serves best. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 18:07:17 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:07:17 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: I would propose a strategy. Since it was easy enough for me to get the number of the Prescott police dept. and the jail and the case number. Make this a *hot* topic in AZ before the hearing on Monday. I.e. Why is AZ executing a CA bench warrant? Who contacted police to let them know where Keith was? This should all be available under FOI requests (if people don't answer questions directly.) My interaction with the Jail indicated that did not have a clue as to whom they were holding. If the CoS fingers are in this and behind this, then it is clear that it should be brought into the light. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sat Feb 3 18:02:49 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:02:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> <35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > The experiments are simple but hard to get right One of the greatest understatements of all time! A simple well publicized experiment that was true but imposable to confirm for 17 years would be unprecedented in Science, at least for the last few centuries; I think you'd have to go back to Hero of Alexandria's steam engine or the Baghdad battery, and even then they weren't really well publicized. Ben, let me ask you a purely theoretical question, suppose two fairly well respected scientists had performed a simple experiment and claimed a revolutionary result, and suppose, just for the sake of argument they were wrong. What do you imagine the results would be 17 years later? I would think crackpots would still be repeating it in science fair experiments and they would still be claiming revolutionary results, and I would imagine real scientists would have forgotten about the entire sorry fiasco and moved on to more productive things. Does any of this sound familiar? John K Clark From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 18:14:03 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:14:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: > If the CoS fingers are in this and behind this, then it is clear that it should be brought into the light. To further expand upon this the phone numbers of the major TV stations in AZ should be posted. (We have < 48 hours in which to spin things.) Said TV stations should be informed as to whether KH's arrest is a CoS witch hunt. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 18:32:19 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:32:19 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <5366105b0702030957h2af6bef7y85484985954e9b42@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0702030957h2af6bef7y85484985954e9b42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/3/07, Jay Dugger wrote:When you call the jail: > > 1) Remember you deal with the police. > 2) Speak politely. > 3) Refer to the case number (389486) and ask for Keith by his full > name, Howard Keith Henson. Yes, all very valid points! (It was tricky getting Keith Henson -> Howard Keith Henson). Keith is in custody not due to the execution by the Yavapai County Police Department (and one should bear this in mind) (though one might want to investigate who arrested him and what their sources were) but due to an upstream fault of "justice" and the downstream consequences of that. The people you may be talking to are "tools" in the system and one should understand this. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Feb 3 18:39:53 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:39:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith Henson Legal Support Fund Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203123701.044dbe90@pop-server.austin.rr.com> We are providing Extropy Institute's website as a location to send donations in support of Keith. You can locate the donation page here: http://www.extropy.org or go directly here: http://www.extropy.org/membership.htm Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 18:43:37 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:43:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0702030957h2af6bef7y85484985954e9b42@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0702031043r553852b9q61b4357ecc681f5e@mail.gmail.com> 12:34 Saturday, 3 February 2007 I've just made the first post to "Free Keith Henson." Group author invitations have gone out. If you want one, just ask. We still need details of the arrest for local media. We had best have the honest and complete facts beforehand. Who knows how to write a press release? Like it or not, many people do not read BoingBoing, and the media need a "viable news product" before they devote attention and resources to it. I will be away for the next few hours. I just returned from eleven days out of the country, and have accumulated errands to run. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Feb 3 18:06:39 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:06:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith Henson Taken into Custody References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203120620.044df5d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkdelong at pobox.com Sat Feb 3 18:51:35 2007 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:51:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <5366105b0702031043r553852b9q61b4357ecc681f5e@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0702030957h2af6bef7y85484985954e9b42@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0702031043r553852b9q61b4357ecc681f5e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I can write a press release. However I'm about to head out for a few hours. Should be back around 5pm ET. Joint releases work best. So if the EI is officially supporting the Legal Fund then they should put out a release talking about the issue and centered around the legal fund with a boilerplate for both the EI and Keith Henson. BTW, we should identify a single person to be the media point-person for Keith. Arel should be the one to accept that person and while many of you, (I'm just a back-end person here), can speak on the issue, that single point person should play the "dispatcher" so to speak. Maybe we create a VOIP VM box with a phone number that acts as the press number and create a single email alias that forwards to a group of us would be good to pass around. Also, we can send email notifications of new VMs from the VOIP box to that address as well. It will certainly prevent a lot of confusion. On 2/3/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > 12:34 Saturday, 3 February 2007 > > I've just made the first post to "Free Keith Henson." Group author > invitations have gone out. If you want one, just ask. We still need > details of the arrest for local media. We had best have the honest and > complete facts beforehand. > > Who knows how to write a press release? Like it or not, many people do > not read BoingBoing, and the media need a "viable news product" before > they devote attention and resources to it. > > I will be away for the next few hours. I just returned from eleven > days out of the country, and have accumulated errands to run. > > -- > Jay Dugger > http://jaydugger.suprglu.com > Sometimes the delete key serves best. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 18:52:47 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:52:47 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Jay Dugger's blog related to K.H. situation Message-ID: Forward: On 2/3/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > To contribute to this blog, visit: > http://www2.blogger.com/i.g?inviteID=866265591557676048&blogID=1640021583814025998 > > Jay, I went there and it seemed to be co-opted by advertisers. Does one have a open-access forum for Keith's situation which does not involve possible diversions of interest. Note I would suggest some hosting a specific site and refusing to accept commercial sponsorship. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Feb 3 17:57:29 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:57:29 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <0JCW00JDRC09VC80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> References: <0JCW00JDRC09VC80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203115708.030810c0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:48 AM 2/3/2007, Robin wrote: >I just mentioned Keith's troubles in passing at OvercomingBias.com Excellent Robin. Great. Natasha Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george at betterhumans.com Sat Feb 3 19:07:28 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:07:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203115708.030810c0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <0JCW00JDRC09VC80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.2.20070203115708.030810c0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: Feel free to use excerpts from my blog posts for the press release: http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2007/02/anti-scientology-activist-keith-henson.html From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 19:18:49 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:18:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Jay Dugger's blog related to K.H. situation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5366105b0702031118t25039268gef0678e823f319c8@mail.gmail.com> 13:09 Saturday, 3 February 2007 R.B.: I don't see any ads on the site, even if I sign out of the Google Account. (Screen shot on request.) > Jay, I went there and it seemed to be co-opted by advertisers. Does one > have a open-access forum for Keith's situation which does not involve > possible diversions of interest. > That sounds like a better idea, I agree. I don't have the skill to quickly establish such. This blog can end when a better alternative exists. Speed seems to matter here. > Note I would suggest some hosting a specific site and refusing to accept > commercial sponsorship. Agreed on both counts. I still don't see any ads on blogspot though. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 19:24:34 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:24:34 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <0JCW00JDRC09VC80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <6.2.1.2.2.20070203115708.030810c0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: I would stress efforts to reveal why KH was located and arrested and imprisoned. *Who* informed people in AZ that Keith might be present. Who promoted the arrest. etc. Under standard FOI requests one can obtain such information. One's "overlord" is not free from revealing its sources. We should document such to give Keith a fair hearing. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Feb 3 19:10:06 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:10:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <001701c747c6$eb0e0610$640fa8c0@kevin> Would someone care to give an ENTIRE summary of the complaints, the contributions and what this is all about? I keep finding information but what I can't find is a summary describing Keith, who he is, what he has allegedly done, why someone has accused him of such things, etc. I would like to hear the story from the beginning. I have some resources at my disposal since I manage 32 different websites that could all be quickly given a link to the information, but I'm not doign anything until someone can give me the "story". ----- Original Message ----- From: "B.K. DeLong" To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List" Cc: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > Natasha - do we have a good, one-paragraph summary detailing Keith's > contributions to the Transhumanisim movement? > > Might give a bit more relevance to a posting on all our respective > blogs & sites. > > On 2/3/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > At 07:17 AM 2/3/2007, George Dvorsky wrote: > > > > > > I just got this very disturbing email from Arel. Please do what you can to > > help. > > Keith is a long, long time friend of many and this community and we must do > > what we can to help him and Arel. > > > > Natasha > > > > Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary > > Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, > > Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > > > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, > > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the > > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system > > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wta-talk mailing list > > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > > > > > > > > -- > B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) > bkdelong at pobox.com > +1.617.797.8471 > > http://www.wkdelong.org Son. > http://www.ianetsec.com Work. > http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. > http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. > http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. > > > PGP Fingerprint: > 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE > > FOAF: > http://foaf.brain-stream.org > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Feb 3 19:38:24 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:38:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <0JCW00JDRC09VC80@caduceus1.gmu.edu><6.2.1.2.2.20070203115708.030810c0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: My post is here: http://www.jefallbright.net http://www.jefallbright.net/keith_henson - Jef > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of George Dvorsky > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:07 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > > Feel free to use excerpts from my blog posts for the press release: > http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2007/02/anti-scientology- > activist-keith-henson.html > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sat Feb 3 19:16:56 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:16:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody Message-ID: <001501c747c7$df922770$640fa8c0@kevin> Please disregard this email. I totally missed this. I was thinking about something else and didn't realize that this was THE Keith Henson. Bad duh moment. That goes to show you what happens when you have children. lol > Would someone care to give an ENTIRE summary of the complaints, the > contributions and what this is all about? I keep finding information but > what I can't find is a summary describing Keith, who he is, what he has > allegedly done, why someone has accused him of such things, etc. I would > like to hear the story from the beginning. I have some resources at my > disposal since I manage 32 different websites that could all be quickly > given a link to the information, but I'm not doign anything until someone > can give me the "story". > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "B.K. DeLong" > To: "World Transhumanist Association Discussion List" > > Cc: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 11:51 AM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into > Custody > > > > Natasha - do we have a good, one-paragraph summary detailing Keith's > > contributions to the Transhumanisim movement? > > > > Might give a bit more relevance to a posting on all our respective > > blogs & sites. > > > > On 2/3/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > > > At 07:17 AM 2/3/2007, George Dvorsky wrote: > > > > > > > > > I just got this very disturbing email from Arel. Please do what you can > to > > > help. > > > Keith is a long, long time friend of many and this community and we > must do > > > what we can to help him and Arel. > > > > > > Natasha > > > > > > Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, > Planetary > > > Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, > > > Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & > Culture > > > > > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the > circle, > > > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside > the > > > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system > > > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > wta-talk mailing list > > > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > > > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) > > bkdelong at pobox.com > > +1.617.797.8471 > > > > http://www.wkdelong.org Son. > > http://www.ianetsec.com Work. > > http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. > > http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. > > http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: > > 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE > > > > FOAF: > > http://foaf.brain-stream.org > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 20:05:32 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:05:32 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Nearby Help to you and Keith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Bradbury Date: Feb 3, 2007 8:02 PM Subject: Re: Nearby Help to you and Keith To: Amara Graps It goes without saying that there is a "spin" -- "Scientology witch hunt snares a transhumanist" (or something along those lines.) Scientology (and Tom Cruise) are active just below the radar of popular press. It does not take much to raise them to the "attention level". One could be calling up either Jay Leno or Craig Fergusun and offering comments. Both Jay and Craig have no difficulty taking on ''that which should not be". One has to however present it to the writers as such. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 20:14:43 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:14:43 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <001501c747c7$df922770$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <001501c747c7$df922770$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: It has been discussed. The place to start is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson That is out-of-date and should be updated with respect to the current status. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bret at bonfireproductions.com Sat Feb 3 19:48:14 2007 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:48:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CC76E76-497A-40E0-9EA3-513DB305AA68@bonfireproductions.com> I'm sorta off-net right at the moment but if someone can get to digg.com and "digg" a link to something solid like this blog (not the wikipedia entry) then I am sure I can get people to "digg" the article to the top of the pile. This is probably his best bet - I'd digg it myself but the CGI won't submit on this mobile. On Feb 3, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Jef Allbright wrote: > Those who have blogs can help by posting their own concise personal > statements and including links to http://freekeithhenson.blogspot.com/ > as well as http://www.operatingthetan.com/, http:// > www.keithhenson.org/, > and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson. Don't rely on > reposting > text from other blogs, as duplicate text is increasingly ignored by > search engine algorithms. > > Doing so will rapidly influence visibility on Google and other search > engines. Please choose wording carefully as the search engine excerpts > will be read widely when the entire post may not. This is about > visibility, reputation and integrity. > > - Jef > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps >> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:54 AM >> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody >> >> Nothing yet on Boing Boing. Maybe they think I'm a kook. Or maybe >> my >> crappy FastWeb ISP caused my message to be tagged as SPAM. Or maybe >> the topic is too dangerous for them. >> >> Others here, feel free to write Boing Boing too. >> http://boingboing.net/suggest.html Perhaps use the Wikipedia >> entry, >> as a suggested link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson >> I think that it is the clearest for an introduction to him. >> >> Anyone here on Cryonet? They should know too. >> >> Amara >> >> -- >> >> Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com >> INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, >> ITALIA >> Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), >> Tucson >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 3 20:37:36 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:37:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <7CC76E76-497A-40E0-9EA3-513DB305AA68@bonfireproductions.com> References: <7CC76E76-497A-40E0-9EA3-513DB305AA68@bonfireproductions.com> Message-ID: <20070203203736.GX21677@leitl.org> On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 02:48:14PM -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > I'm sorta off-net right at the moment but if someone can get to > digg.com and "digg" a link to something solid like this blog (not the I've done it for reddit http://freeculture.reddit.com/info/12pou/comments what's the digg URL to mod up? > wikipedia entry) then I am sure I can get people to "digg" the > article to the top of the pile. > > This is probably his best bet - I'd digg it myself but the CGI won't > submit on this mobile. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From george at betterhumans.com Sat Feb 3 20:38:48 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:38:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <20070203203736.GX21677@leitl.org> References: <7CC76E76-497A-40E0-9EA3-513DB305AA68@bonfireproductions.com> <20070203203736.GX21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: I've added it to Digg. Please Digg it. http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona On 2/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 02:48:14PM -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > > > I'm sorta off-net right at the moment but if someone can get to > > digg.com and "digg" a link to something solid like this blog (not the > > I've done it for reddit http://freeculture.reddit.com/info/12pou/comments > what's the digg URL to mod up? > > > wikipedia entry) then I am sure I can get people to "digg" the > > article to the top of the pile. > > > > This is probably his best bet - I'd digg it myself but the CGI won't > > submit on this mobile. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFFxPKQdbAkQ4sp9r4RAiOxAJ49Oy5CJkV6C7n4mLfxVdcqVEobuwCcDVoh > CcTdFXVofoFfZKo9MBGgZIg= > =Ue6K > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 3 20:41:24 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:41:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:07:17 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Why is AZ executing a CA bench warrant? I'm wondering the same. From what I understand his alleged offense was a misdemeanor, not a felony, and this was only a bench warrant anyway. I'm no legal expert but I didn't think the feds got involved in such matters. -gts From bkdelong at pobox.com Sat Feb 3 22:29:17 2007 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:29:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: Have we generated a list of reporters who have covered this in the past? I can track them down. Just need names and publications. On 2/3/07, gts wrote: > On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:07:17 -0500, Robert Bradbury > wrote: > > > Why is AZ executing a CA bench warrant? > > I'm wondering the same. > > From what I understand his alleged offense was a misdemeanor, not a > felony, and this was only a bench warrant anyway. I'm no legal expert but > I didn't think the feds got involved in such matters. > > -gts > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org From bret at bonfireproductions.com Sat Feb 3 23:20:54 2007 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:20:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <7CC76E76-497A-40E0-9EA3-513DB305AA68@bonfireproductions.com> <20070203203736.GX21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5AC3AD7D-0AB5-41C3-A627-8DEE6A877E2F@bonfireproductions.com> Thanks so much George - I've sent it on to the AlcorNewEngland list as well as a local Nerds list in the Boston area and a few other pro- human cronies as well. /something to talk about other than ATHF debacle is nice. On Feb 3, 2007, at 3:38 PM, George Dvorsky wrote: > I've added it to Digg. Please Digg it. > http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona > > On 2/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 02:48:14PM -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote: >>> >>> I'm sorta off-net right at the moment but if someone can get to >>> digg.com and "digg" a link to something solid like this blog (not >>> the >> >> I've done it for reddit http://freeculture.reddit.com/info/12pou/ >> comments >> what's the digg URL to mod up? >> >>> wikipedia entry) then I am sure I can get people to "digg" the >>> article to the top of the pile. >>> >>> This is probably his best bet - I'd digg it myself but the CGI won't >>> submit on this mobile. >> >> -- >> Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org >> ______________________________________________________________ >> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com >> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iD8DBQFFxPKQdbAkQ4sp9r4RAiOxAJ49Oy5CJkV6C7n4mLfxVdcqVEobuwCcDVoh >> CcTdFXVofoFfZKo9MBGgZIg= >> =Ue6K >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Feb 3 23:53:15 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:53:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ATTN: KEITH HENSON LEGAL SUPPORT FUND Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203174850.0524b180@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Friends, Within the first hour we have received $350.00 from donations. Please help by donating any amount you can. Even $5.00 will help. This is a great start! "We are providing Extropy Institute's website as a location to send donations in support of Keith. You can locate the donation page here: http://www.extropy.org or go directly here: http://www.extropy.org/membership.htm " Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 4 01:08:42 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:08:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> <35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org> <003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org> Yes, but in the case of CF, many of the replicators have been respected scientists at decent universities... not just crackpots in science fair experiments... I don't really care about theoretical questions about hypothetical situations, I'm more interesting in talking about the details of this particular case, which you are not informed about... Ben On Feb 3, 2007, at 1:02 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Ben Goertzel" > >> The experiments are simple but hard to get right > > One of the greatest understatements of all time! A simple well > publicized > experiment that was true but imposable to confirm for 17 years > would be > unprecedented in Science, at least for the last few centuries; I > think you'd > have to go back to Hero of Alexandria's steam engine or the Baghdad > battery, > and even then they weren't really well publicized. > > Ben, let me ask you a purely theoretical question, suppose two > fairly well > respected scientists had performed a simple experiment and claimed a > revolutionary result, and suppose, just for the sake of argument > they were > wrong. What do you imagine the results would be 17 years later? I > would > think crackpots would still be repeating it in science fair > experiments and > they would still be claiming revolutionary results, and I would > imagine real > scientists would have forgotten about the entire sorry fiasco and > moved on > to more productive things. Does any of this sound familiar? > > John K Clark > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Feb 4 03:43:43 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:43:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody References: <0JCW00JDRC09VC80@caduceus1.gmu.edu><6.2.1.2.2.20070203115708.030810c0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <00cc01c7480e$ac3ba300$cd17b743@BOXX> Hi guys, to contribute, I spent the day making banners for Keith.These animated gifs are available to you to post on your website, pass around or forward in support of Keith. They are in various sizes, large, medium and small. Now I recommend the gifs - they have a real punch, but just in case you need jpgs, they are available for you as well. These are all in one place for you, here: http://nanogirl.com/keith/ I tried to make the model as much to Keith's likeness as I can, I'm not sure about his eyecolor but the most important point of the banner is the message and I think that is clear. You may pass the banners and the above link to whomever you like - however if it is to press let me know. I know this banner is a small gesture, but I hope it helps in spreading the word and gathering support. All our best to Arel. Keith - we are keeping our fingers crossed for you. Gina "Nanogirl" Miller www.nanogirl.com From amara at amara.com Sun Feb 4 08:03:37 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:03:37 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody Message-ID: I looked at the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup for the first time in my life. Not recommended. But Keith is mentioned by his supporters in there, among that other stuff. To raise media awareness, these are the valuable pieces of information that I saw posted in the newsgroup from two persons (John Dorsay and Eldon). The jail has a media contact person (who would've thought?), named Susan Quayle who will be at these numbers Monday morning, Arizona time. Therefore if you're a media person, use this. 928-777-1924 928-771-3286 Main points about his legal status: 1. Keith was convicted of a misdemeanor offense in California. Can a person be extradited from Arizona for a misdemeanor conviction? 2. Keith was convicted of "interfering with a religion", an offense which is (as far as I know), unique to California. Can a person be extradited from Arizona when he has not done anything that would be considered illegal in Arizona? 3. The judge prohibited Keith from presenting a proper and complete defense. Will this fact be considered when a decision is made about extradition? (Jay, can you post this to your blog, under title: "Points for the Media" ?) Amara From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Feb 3 17:55:15 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:55:15 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203104450.02dd1e60@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070203115409.02ff0268@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I don't know. Shall we create one? I can email Arel and get her input. Natasha At 11:51 AM 2/3/2007, you wrote: >Natasha - do we have a good, one-paragraph summary detailing Keith's >contributions to the Transhumanisim movement? > >Might give a bit more relevance to a posting on all our respective >blogs & sites. > >On 2/3/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > At 07:17 AM 2/3/2007, George Dvorsky wrote: > > > > > > I just got this very disturbing email from Arel. Please do what you can to > > help. > > Keith is a long, long time friend of many and this community and we > must do > > what we can to help him and Arel. > > > > Natasha > > > > Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary > > Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, > > Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > > > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, > > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the > > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system > > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > wta-talk mailing list > > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > > > > > > > >-- >B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) >bkdelong at pobox.com >+1.617.797.8471 > >http://www.wkdelong.org Son. >http://www.ianetsec.com Work. >http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. >http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. >http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. > > >PGP Fingerprint: >38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE > >FOAF: >http://foaf.brain-stream.org >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davekrieger at pobox.com Sun Feb 4 07:45:58 2007 From: davekrieger at pobox.com (Dave Krieger) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:45:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody Message-ID: <8d49352c0702032345j4f344a9r18816d6c1c8fad3@mail.gmail.com> The oldest old-timers might recognize my name. Keith's arrest was just brought to my attention and I just caught up on the thread on the web archive. I wanted to raise a couple of points about Scientology that I haven't seen mentioned yet: First, please remember that Scientology is big on infiltration, and if they identify the mailing list (and ExI) as the nexus of assistance for Keith, they are likely to assign some of their operatives to gather intelligence and inject noise... potentially, an incapacitating level of noise. I'm glad to see that my attempt to post as a non-member was rejected, but it may be also be prudent to change the subscription policy to require approval for a while. The public web archive should remain available, as it's a useful way to rally the non-subscriber troops (like me), but any information that could be useful to Scientology should definitely be kept to out-of-band email. Members should disregard any posts from anyone they don't know by reputation (including me ;-) and in particular avoid assigning any responsibility to any "volunteers" who aren't well-known within the list. Second, I saw some references to Keith's Wikipedia article as a proposed resource to provide to news media. Scientology may target the article for vandalism (in fact I'm surprised they haven't already, but then they never have had much 'net savvy); it may be best to preemptively request that the article be locked. dk Simpletoneity, n. The phenomenon of many people doing the same stupid thing all at once. From davekrieger at pobox.com Sun Feb 4 07:50:08 2007 From: davekrieger at pobox.com (Dave Krieger) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:50:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your message to extropy-chat awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d49352c0702032350n4c212f46o3b8002969c4a0cbb@mail.gmail.com> Ah, list moderation... even better. Nice to see all those lessons we learned back in the early '90's took. :-D dk Deathicate, v. To speak in opposition to life extension, cryonics, etc. "Guests are asked to refrain from deathicating in the pool." On 2/3/07, extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org wrote: > Your mail to 'extropy-chat' with the subject > > Re: Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Post to moderated list > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel > this posting, please visit the following URL: > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/confirm.cgi/extropy-chat/6f2e19ee245accd3e62aac7d8bb6c301440bccc3 > > From fortean1 at mindspring.com Thu Feb 1 02:53:20 2007 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:53:20 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (Down Syndrome) New column NBICS and Military Products out Message-ID: <31485175.1170298401260.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > >An overview article describing nano-weapons programs in several countries >is the first one I have seen. > >Terry > > >-----Forwarded Message----- >>From: Gregor Wolbring >>Sent: Jan 30, 2007 5:47 PM >>To: DOWN-SYN at LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU >>Subj: New column NBICS and Military Products out >> >>< http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2007-01-30.htm > >> >> >>Cheers >>Gregor > > >Terry W. Colvin >Sierra Vista, Arizona From amara at amara.com Sun Feb 4 11:55:28 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:55:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- DIGG Message-ID: Don't forget to 'digg' the article. Registration on digg is simple. http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 4 12:09:50 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:09:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- DIGG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070204120950.GI21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 12:55:28PM +0100, Amara Graps wrote: > Don't forget to 'digg' the article. Registration on digg is simple. > > http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona Great, and it made the reddit front page, too: http://reddit.com/ #7 right now. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From TwiceIrish at usflagdepot.com Sun Feb 4 11:40:45 2007 From: TwiceIrish at usflagdepot.com (TwiceIrish) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:40:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody References: Message-ID: <01ef01c74851$4e9de530$6401a8c0@TwiceIrish> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Amara Graps" To: Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 2:03 AM Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > > I looked at the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup for the first time in > my life. Not recommended. But Keith is mentioned by his supporters in > there, among that other stuff. To raise media awareness, these are the > valuable pieces of information that I saw posted in the newsgroup from > two persons (John Dorsay and Eldon). It's a strange newsgroup, hard to decipher for the uninitiated. Keith has many supporters many are working diligently to help him. > > The jail has a media contact person (who would've thought?), named Susan > Quayle who will be at these numbers Monday morning, Arizona time. > > Therefore if you're a media person, use this. > 928-777-1924 > 928-771-3286 I believe there is a typo here. The correct number is perhaps 928-771-1924. The phone numbers should be checked more thoroughly before being posted anywhere else. (snip) ~Shirley Shirley Dalzell U.S. Flag Depot, Inc. www.usflag.org www.usflagdepot.com From rbarreira at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 13:20:19 2007 From: rbarreira at gmail.com (Ricardo Barreira) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:20:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <8d49352c0702032345j4f344a9r18816d6c1c8fad3@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d49352c0702032345j4f344a9r18816d6c1c8fad3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5df798750702040520y3249b07ege35087a483f4cddc@mail.gmail.com> Hello, An important problem is that no mainstream media has picked up any news on this yet. I wanted to try submitting a story on this to slashdot, but would like to do it with a link to a respectful news website. People who can contact respectful journalists to run this, please do! Regards, Ricardo Barreira On 2/4/07, Dave Krieger wrote: > The oldest old-timers might recognize my name. Keith's arrest was just > brought to my attention and I just caught up on the thread on the web > archive. I wanted to raise a couple of points about Scientology that I > haven't seen mentioned yet: > > First, please remember that Scientology is big on infiltration, and if > they identify the mailing list (and ExI) as the nexus of assistance > for Keith, they are likely to assign some of their operatives to > gather intelligence and inject noise... potentially, an incapacitating > level of noise. I'm glad to see that my attempt to post as a > non-member was rejected, but it may be also be prudent to change the > subscription policy to require approval for a while. The public web > archive should remain available, as it's a useful way to rally the > non-subscriber troops (like me), but any information that could be > useful to Scientology should definitely be kept to out-of-band email. > > Members should disregard any posts from anyone they don't know by > reputation (including me ;-) and in particular avoid assigning any > responsibility to any "volunteers" who aren't well-known within the > list. > > Second, I saw some references to Keith's Wikipedia article as a > proposed resource to provide to news media. Scientology may target the > article for vandalism (in fact I'm surprised they haven't already, but > then they never have had much 'net savvy); it may be best to > preemptively request that the article be locked. > > dk > Simpletoneity, n. The phenomenon of many people doing the same stupid > thing all at once. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From TwiceIrish at usflagdepot.com Sun Feb 4 14:20:40 2007 From: TwiceIrish at usflagdepot.com (TwiceIrish) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:20:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- Advice from Lolits References: Message-ID: <02a301c74867$a6429040$6401a8c0@TwiceIrish> (This is advice from LOLITS, a representative of LOLITS is watching the current situation of Keith too. ) Bob wrote: People who care about someone in Keith's situation must contact the jail authorities and present their concerns.the more letters the better. Let them know that political, activist and jail/prison reformers are watching closely to see how the inmate is treated, i.e. does he receive prescribed medication, protection from other inmates, etc. Have someone from a friendly media source phone or inquire as to possibly interviewing Keith. Whether they intend to or not, jail officials are now very concerned about media oversight about their operation(s). Constant vigilance is what is going to be needed. Mention group names, like the LOLITS, and others you find on the internet in your communication with the jail administration. If he has received threats - with or without evidence - make the officials aware of that and of your concern. Let them know immediately should anything happen that Keith has friends who will follow up on any harm that comes to him with a media and political blitz about how they failed to keep him safe. Bob - Everything Military -- ~Shirley Shirley Dalzell U.S. Flag Depot, Inc. www.usflag.org www.usflagdepot.com From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Feb 4 15:21:38 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:21:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ATTN: DAY 1 - KEITH HENSON LEGAL SUPPORT FUND Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070204091652.044ab5f8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Friends, On first day of this campaign we raised $930.00 in donations! Thank you! Please forward this to anyone and everyone. "We are providing Extropy Institute's website as a location to send donations in support of Keith. You can locate the donation page here: http://www.extropy.org or go directly here: http://www.extropy.org/membership.htm " Please help by donating any amount you can. Even $5.00 will help. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Feb 4 15:43:40 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:43:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- How to Reach Newspapers Message-ID: Ricardo Barreira rbarreira at gmail.com : >Hello, >An important problem is that no mainstream media has picked up any >news on this yet. I wanted to try submitting a story on this to >slashdot, but would like to do it with a link to a respectful news >website. >People who can contact respectful journalists to run this, please do! >Regards, >Ricardo Barreira It's a shame that Boing Boing are choosing not to step into this fire. Understandable, perhaps. Others are working on trying to reach 'respectable media'. I've sent the below to a couple of different people at a large Arizona newspaper. If you fill in your particular slant on this, customizing it as you like, then more newspapers, can be covered. Choose from the list of newspapers here, and begin. Go to particular people listed at the 'Contact' who work at News desks and Features desks and address them by name in your email. California and Arizona Newspapers http://www.50states.com/news/arizona.htm http://www.50states.com/news/calif.htm Amara ============ FILL IN and email ======================================== Dear XXX I am a reader of your newspaper XXX. This email is to alert you to a story you or your colleagues may be interested in covering. I've collected the relevant points into a press release, below. If you have questions, you can reach me at this email or XXX (phone). You can gain more information from Arel Lucas [(928) 445-4412 or (323) 712-5492], as well. I've known Keith for XXX years as an accomplished scientist, engineer and futurist. He's in a bad situation and any media coverage that your newspaper could put towards his story may just protect him from what he and his family fear most. Sincerely yours, YOU Your email Anti-Scientology activist Keith Henson taken into custody Keith Henson, an outspoken anti-Scientology activist, was arrested last Friday (February 2) night by Prescott, Arizona Police (928) 771-3286, and is currently being held at the Prescott Detention Center in Arizona [1]. His wife, Arel Lucas, says she is unsure why he was stopped, but upon checking his Canadian driver's license, he taken into custody on a 6-year old bench warrant issued by a Riverside County, California judge. He is slated to appear before a judge on Monday February 5, regarding a Riverside County (Scientology related) warrant [2]. Henson's troubles began in 2001 when he was convicted of "interfering with a religion", a misdemeanor under California law, for picketing outside Scientology's facility in Hemet, California. He left to Canada before serving any time after receiving a number of death threats. He was deported from Canada in 2005 after his asylum bid was rejected. His location until February 2, 2007 was unknown. His legal situation since 2001 raises questions regarding the influence of the Church of Scientology (CoS) over Riverside County's judicial system and the changes in Canada's position on Keith's refugee status after 9-11. His present situation raises more legal points [3]. Lucas strongly suspects that the Church of Scientology is involved in Henson's current incarceration and fears for both his life and her own. The death threats have been constant since 2001. Scientology's power and reach has become considerable in recent years, leading to accusations that it is not so much a cult as it is an organized crime outfit that disguises itself as a religious organization. Learn more about Keith Henson and his situation ------------------------------------------------ Arel Lucas, wife of Keith Henson: (928) 445-4412 or (323) 712-5492. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson http://freekeithhenson.blogspot.com/ http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona http://www.jefallbright.net/keith_henson Some background on CoS here http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-scientology18dec18,0,2963052.story?coll=la-homepage-calendar-widget [1] Yavapai County Government: Clerk of Superior Court 120 S Cortez St Prescott, AZ 86303 (928) 771-3312 http://ww2.co.yavapai.az.us/departments/Sct/SctHome.asp He is case number 389486 and booked under his full name, Howard Keith Henson. [2] The jail has a media contact person, named Susan Quayle, who will be at these numbers Monday morning, Arizona time. 928-777-1924 928-771-3286 [3] Main points about his legal status: 1. Keith was convicted of a misdemeanor offense in California. Can a person be extradited from Arizona for a misdemeanor conviction? 2. Keith was convicted of "interfering with a religion", an offense which is (as far as I know), unique to California. Can a person be extradited from Arizona when he has not done anything that would be considered illegal in Arizona? 3. The judge prohibited Keith from presenting a proper and complete defense. Will this fact be considered when a decision is made about extradition? From jonkc at att.net Sun Feb 4 17:00:12 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:00:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> <1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > many of the replicators have been respected > scientists at decent universities And yet these respected scientists at decent universities prefer to be published in Spoon Bending Digest rather than Nature or Science. How odd. John K Clark From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 17:23:17 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:23:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your message to extropy-chat awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: <8d49352c0702032350n4c212f46o3b8002969c4a0cbb@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d49352c0702032350n4c212f46o3b8002969c4a0cbb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0702040923k32465d50uc5002f929fea611e@mail.gmail.com> 11:21 Sunday, 4 February 2007 On 2/4/07, Dave Krieger wrote: > Ah, list moderation... even better. Nice to see all those lessons we > learned back in the early '90's took. :-D > Only user error, I fear. I meant to send a screen shot to Robert, but hit "Reply to all" by accident. This sent it to the list, and the list manager rejected an oversized attachement. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 17:40:53 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:40:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <01ef01c74851$4e9de530$6401a8c0@TwiceIrish> References: <01ef01c74851$4e9de530$6401a8c0@TwiceIrish> Message-ID: <5366105b0702040940q19b48df5mfcac97f1261cc334@mail.gmail.com> 11:39 Sunday, 4 February 2007 On 2/4/07, TwiceIrish wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Amara Graps" [snip] > > Therefore if you're a media person, use this. > > 928-777-1924 > > 928-771-3286 > > I believe there is a typo here. The correct number is perhaps 928-771-1924. > > The phone numbers should be checked more thoroughly before being posted > anywhere else. > > > (snip) > > ~Shirley I can verify the second phone number reaches the Prescott Detention Center. I'll post all of these after I verify the first number. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 4 18:00:41 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:00:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> <20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> <35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org> <003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> <1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org> <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com> At 12:00 PM 2/4/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: >"Ben Goertzel" > > > many of the replicators have been respected > > scientists at decent universities > >And yet these respected scientists at decent universities prefer to be >published in Spoon Bending Digest rather than Nature or Science. How odd. It would only be odd if Nature and Science did not have a policy in place of refusing to consider papers on this topic, since the topic is agreed to be MEGA-BULLSHIT. There must be a way for controversial claims to break through such an impasse, but it's not obvious how. Presumably if any of the researchers ever develop a highly reliable fuel cell and put it on the market without getting successfully prosecuted for fraud, there'll be some mild throat-clearing and the papers will start to appear. Nothing succeeds like excess (heat)--although it took long enough for the greenhouse effect to be accepted. Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 4 19:22:50 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 20:22:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your message to extropy-chat awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: <5366105b0702040923k32465d50uc5002f929fea611e@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d49352c0702032350n4c212f46o3b8002969c4a0cbb@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0702040923k32465d50uc5002f929fea611e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070204192250.GP21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:23:17AM -0600, Jay Dugger wrote: > Only user error, I fear. I meant to send a screen shot to Robert, but Nope, no user error. > hit "Reply to all" by accident. This sent it to the list, and the list > manager rejected an oversized attachement. All new users are on moderation by default. Size limits are orthogonal to that. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From scerir at libero.it Sun Feb 4 19:32:05 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 20:32:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer><1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org><001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> the Italian National Agency for the New Technologies, Energy and the Environmental (ENEA) http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/index-eng.htm has a (slow) page about cold fusion (last update: 2003) and this paper A.De Ninno, A. Frattolillo, A. Rizzo, E. del Giudice, G. Preparata "Experimental evidence of 4He production in a cold fusion experiment" RT/2002/41/FUS http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf. www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-FUS.pdf They write, at the end, "The presence of 4He provides evidence that a nuclear process occurred in the cell; a nuclear reaction has been obtained with purely chemical procedures." From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 4 19:44:01 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:44:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> <20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> <35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org> <003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> <1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org> <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com> <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070204134137.0224f910@satx.rr.com> At 08:32 PM 2/4/2007 +0100, Serafino wrote: >the Italian National Agency for the New Technologies, >Energy and the Environmental (ENEA) >http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/index-eng.htm >has a (slow) page about cold fusion >(last update: 2003) Yeah, latest news page update seems to be 2003. And yet they haven't repudiated their earlier reports. Is this a govt supported lab? Damien Broderick From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 20:19:54 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:19:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] String theory testable? Message-ID: Extropes, I've never felt encouraged that the extra dimensions of string theory would be detectable/accessible from our "dimensional level" of reality. My (barely dilettante-level) impression was that substantially more energy (orders of magnitude?) would be needed to "blast open" the subject "extra-dimensional" structures than was available using current particle-physics high-energy collision gear. So the following article --hope it's more than fluff -- came as a pleasant surprise: Physicists find way to 'see' extra dimensions http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/uow-pfw020207.php The researchers use the big bang itself to provide the requisite energy, and the heavens themselves as the data recording "device". Gives new meaning to the credo of proto-extropians past: "A sentient being's reach should exceed ver grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Robert Browning (mostly) -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From amara at amara.com Sun Feb 4 20:32:32 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:32:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings Message-ID: Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com >Is this a govt supported lab? Yes. (ENEA-Frascati is five minutes away, do you want a picture ? :-) ) "Supported", as in 'adequate money for the Italian scientists and their research' is, however, a debatable topic (for all Italian government supported laboratories). Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 20:47:54 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 20:47:54 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/4/07, Amara Graps wrote: > > Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com > >Is this a govt supported lab? > > Yes. (ENEA-Frascati is five minutes away, do you want a picture ? :-) ) > Amara, at some point, if our ever so distant future paths should cross again, please do not hesitate to remind me to find that "instance" at which I loved you. I make no claims as to how long such "instances" could or should last. I am however willing to acknowledge their existence and express such. In my list of people I most admire, you are right up there at the top. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Feb 4 21:11:52 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:11:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Your message to extropy-chat awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: <5366105b0702040923k32465d50uc5002f929fea611e@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d49352c0702032350n4c212f46o3b8002969c4a0cbb@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0702040923k32465d50uc5002f929fea611e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0702041311r560ca547nfd62b480063d3094@mail.gmail.com> Two unrelated events, I think. My message certainly bounced due to its oversized attachment. Would that the follow-up had bounced due to its misspelling word! -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From amara at amara.com Sun Feb 4 21:27:53 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:27:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings Message-ID: Robert: >[...]In my list of people I most admire, you are right up there at the top. Yeah? Did you know that there is a crater on the moon with your name? http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/jsp/FeatureTypesData2.jsp?systemID=3&bodyID=11&typeID=9&system=Earth&body=Moon&type=Crater,%20craters&sort=AName&show=Fname&show=Lat&show=Long&show=Diam&show=Stat&show=Orig I guess that there must be some 'Robert impact ejecta' somewhere too. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From aiguy at comcast.net Sun Feb 4 21:50:23 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:50:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- How to ReachNewspapers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <021001c748a6$79be15a0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Maybe we could get SouthPark to pick up Keith Henson in an episode. Since Chef has already been transformed into Darth Vadar like Dark Scientologist, the boys could rescue Keith from the the Scientologist new DeathStar. They could reach the Death Star on a Top Secret Extropian space ship powered by cold fusion. Since Trey Parker and Matt Stone are already pissed at the Scientologists for stealing chef away they may be interested in getting some more digs in. That should piss the Scientologists off and teach them not to pick on Extropians! >> Anti-Scientology activist Keith Henson taken into custody Keith Henson, an outspoken anti-Scientology activist, was arrested last Friday (February 2) night by Prescott, Arizona Police (928) 771-3286, and is currently being held at the Prescott Detention Center in Arizona [1]. His wife, Arel Lucas, says she is unsure why he was stopped, but upon checking his Canadian driver's license, he taken into custody on a 6-year old bench warrant issued by a Riverside County, California judge. He is slated to appear before a judge on Monday February 5, regarding a Riverside County (Scientology related) warrant [2]. Henson's troubles began in 2001 when he was convicted of "interfering with a religion", a misdemeanor under California law, for picketing outside Scientology's facility in Hemet, California. He left to Canada before serving any time after receiving a number of death threats. He was deported from Canada in 2005 after his asylum bid was rejected. His location until February 2, 2007 was unknown. His legal situation since 2001 raises questions regarding the influence of the Church of Scientology (CoS) over Riverside County's judicial system and the changes in Canada's position on Keith's refugee status after 9-11. His present situation raises more legal points [3]. Lucas strongly suspects that the Church of Scientology is involved in Henson's current incarceration and fears for both his life and her own. The death threats have been constant since 2001. Scientology's power and reach has become considerable in recent years, leading to accusations that it is not so much a cult as it is an organized crime outfit that disguises itself as a religious organization. Learn more about Keith Henson and his situation ------------------------------------------------ Arel Lucas, wife of Keith Henson: (928) 445-4412 or (323) 712-5492. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson http://freekeithhenson.blogspot.com/ http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona http://www.jefallbright.net/keith_henson Some background on CoS here http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-scientology18dec18,0,2963052.story?col l=la-homepage-calendar-widget [1] Yavapai County Government: Clerk of Superior Court 120 S Cortez St Prescott, AZ 86303 (928) 771-3312 http://ww2.co.yavapai.az.us/departments/Sct/SctHome.asp He is case number 389486 and booked under his full name, Howard Keith Henson. [2] The jail has a media contact person, named Susan Quayle, who will be at these numbers Monday morning, Arizona time. 928-777-1924 928-771-3286 [3] Main points about his legal status: 1. Keith was convicted of a misdemeanor offense in California. Can a person be extradited from Arizona for a misdemeanor conviction? 2. Keith was convicted of "interfering with a religion", an offense which is (as far as I know), unique to California. Can a person be extradited from Arizona when he has not done anything that would be considered illegal in Arizona? 3. The judge prohibited Keith from presenting a proper and complete defense. Will this fact be considered when a decision is made about extradition? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 4 23:10:51 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 18:10:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> <1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org> <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3B000F5A-9429-49A0-9B89-4E24EE168315@goertzel.org> It's not a matter of preference -- Nature and Science refuse to publish CF-related papers, for stupid reasons as Beaudette discusses... ben On Feb 4, 2007, at 12:00 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Ben Goertzel" > >> many of the replicators have been respected >> scientists at decent universities > > And yet these respected scientists at decent universities prefer to be > published in Spoon Bending Digest rather than Nature or Science. > How odd. > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Feb 4 23:39:46 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:39:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith Henson, Scientology Critic Arrest in 10 Zen Monkeys Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070204173932.02e88920@pop-server.austin.rr.com> >"Scientology Fugitive" Arrested by RU Sirius > >http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/02/04/scientology-fugitive-arrested/ Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moses2k at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 00:46:30 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 18:46:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody Message-ID: <3aff9e290702041646l705dfa35vb1751fb8f1d0689f@mail.gmail.com> Cp'ed Amara's press release to a Technorati WTF. http://technorati.com/wtf/keith-henson/2007/02/04/anti-scientology-activist-keith-henson-taken-into--1 Forgive the minor formatting annoyances; I was not given the option to preview. :) -Chris On 2/4/07, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org < extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Send extropy-chat mailing list submissions to > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into Custody (Eugen Leitl) > 2. Re: Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into Custody > (George Dvorsky) > 3. Re: [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody (gts) > 4. Re: [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > (B.K. DeLong) > 5. Re: Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into Custody > (Bret Kulakovich) > 6. ATTN: KEITH HENSON LEGAL SUPPORT FUND (Natasha Vita-More) > 7. Re: Elvis Sightings (Ben Goertzel) > 8. Re: Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody (Gina Miller) > 9. Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody (Amara Graps) > 10. Re: [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > (Natasha Vita-More) > 11. Re: Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody (Dave Krieger) > 12. Re: Your message to extropy-chat awaits moderator approval > (Dave Krieger) > 13. FWD (Down Syndrome) New column NBICS and Military Products > out (Terry Colvin) > 14. Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- DIGG (Amara Graps) > 15. Re: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- DIGG (Eugen Leitl) > 16. Re: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody (TwiceIrish) > 17. Re: Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody (Ricardo Barreira) > 18. Re: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- Advice from Lolits > (TwiceIrish) > 19. ATTN: DAY 1 - KEITH HENSON LEGAL SUPPORT FUND (Natasha Vita-More) > 20. Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- How to Reach Newspapers > (Amara Graps) > 21. Re: Elvis Sightings (John K Clark) > 22. Re: Your message to extropy-chat awaits moderator approval > (Jay Dugger) > 23. Re: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody (Jay Dugger) > 24. Re: Elvis Sightings (Damien Broderick) > 25. Re: Your message to extropy-chat awaits moderator approval > (Eugen Leitl) > 26. Re: Elvis Sightings (scerir) > 27. Re: Elvis Sightings (Damien Broderick) > 28. String theory testable? (Jeff Davis) > 29. Elvis Sightings (Amara Graps) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:37:36 +0100 > From: Eugen Leitl > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into > Custody > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: <20070203203736.GX21677 at leitl.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 02:48:14PM -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > > > I'm sorta off-net right at the moment but if someone can get to > > digg.com and "digg" a link to something solid like this blog (not the > > I've done it for reddit http://freeculture.reddit.com/info/12pou/comments > what's the digg URL to mod up? > > > wikipedia entry) then I am sure I can get people to "digg" the > > article to the top of the pile. > > > > This is probably his best bet - I'd digg it myself but the CGI won't > > submit on this mobile. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 191 bytes > Desc: Digital signature > Url : > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070203/f90bedc8/attachment-0001.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:38:48 -0500 > From: "George Dvorsky" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into > Custody > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > I've added it to Digg. Please Digg it. > http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona > > On 2/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 02:48:14PM -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > > > > > > I'm sorta off-net right at the moment but if someone can get to > > > digg.com and "digg" a link to something solid like this blog (not the > > > > I've done it for reddit > http://freeculture.reddit.com/info/12pou/comments > > what's the digg URL to mod up? > > > > > wikipedia entry) then I am sure I can get people to "digg" the > > > article to the top of the pile. > > > > > > This is probably his best bet - I'd digg it myself but the CGI won't > > > submit on this mobile. > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iD8DBQFFxPKQdbAkQ4sp9r4RAiOxAJ49Oy5CJkV6C7n4mLfxVdcqVEobuwCcDVoh > > CcTdFXVofoFfZKo9MBGgZIg= > > =Ue6K > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:41:24 -0500 > From: gts > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into > Custody > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; > charset=iso-8859-15 > > On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:07:17 -0500, Robert Bradbury > wrote: > > > Why is AZ executing a CA bench warrant? > > I'm wondering the same. > > From what I understand his alleged offense was a misdemeanor, not a > felony, and this was only a bench warrant anyway. I'm no legal expert but > I didn't think the feds got involved in such matters. > > -gts > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:29:17 -0500 > From: "B.K. DeLong" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into > Custody > To: gts_2000 at yahoo.com, "ExI chat list" > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Have we generated a list of reporters who have covered this in the > past? I can track them down. Just need names and publications. > > On 2/3/07, gts wrote: > > On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:07:17 -0500, Robert Bradbury > > wrote: > > > > > Why is AZ executing a CA bench warrant? > > > > I'm wondering the same. > > > > From what I understand his alleged offense was a misdemeanor, not a > > felony, and this was only a bench warrant anyway. I'm no legal expert > but > > I didn't think the feds got involved in such matters. > > > > -gts > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > -- > B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) > bkdelong at pobox.com > +1.617.797.8471 > > http://www.wkdelong.org Son. > http://www.ianetsec.com Work. > http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. > http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. > http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. > > > PGP Fingerprint: > 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE > > FOAF: > http://foaf.brain-stream.org > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:20:54 -0500 > From: Bret Kulakovich > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Digg.com - Re: Keith Henson Taken into > Custody > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: > <5AC3AD7D-0AB5-41C3-A627-8DEE6A877E2F at bonfireproductions.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > > Thanks so much George - I've sent it on to the AlcorNewEngland list > as well as a local Nerds list in the Boston area and a few other pro- > human cronies as well. > > /something to talk about other than ATHF debacle is nice. > > > > On Feb 3, 2007, at 3:38 PM, George Dvorsky wrote: > > > I've added it to Digg. Please Digg it. > > http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona > > > > On 2/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 02:48:14PM -0500, Bret Kulakovich wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm sorta off-net right at the moment but if someone can get to > >>> digg.com and "digg" a link to something solid like this blog (not > >>> the > >> > >> I've done it for reddit http://freeculture.reddit.com/info/12pou/ > >> comments > >> what's the digg URL to mod up? > >> > >>> wikipedia entry) then I am sure I can get people to "digg" the > >>> article to the top of the pile. > >>> > >>> This is probably his best bet - I'd digg it myself but the CGI won't > >>> submit on this mobile. > >> > >> -- > >> Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > >> ______________________________________________________________ > >> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > >> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > >> > >> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > >> > >> iD8DBQFFxPKQdbAkQ4sp9r4RAiOxAJ49Oy5CJkV6C7n4mLfxVdcqVEobuwCcDVoh > >> CcTdFXVofoFfZKo9MBGgZIg= > >> =Ue6K > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 17:53:15 -0600 > From: Natasha Vita-More > Subject: [extropy-chat] ATTN: KEITH HENSON LEGAL SUPPORT FUND > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org;, cryonet at cryonet.org, > wta-talk at transhumanism.org, extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com > Message-ID: > <6.2.1.2.2.20070203174850.0524b180 at pop-server.austin.rr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Friends, > > Within the first hour we have received $350.00 from donations. Please > help > by donating any amount you can. Even $5.00 will help. This is a great > start! > > > "We are providing Extropy Institute's website as a location to send > donations in support of Keith. You can locate the donation page here: > http://www.extropy.org or go directly here: > http://www.extropy.org/membership.htm " > > Many thanks, > Natasha > > > Natasha Vita-More > Design Media Artist - Futurist > PhD Candidate, > >Planetary > Collegium > Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy > Institute > Member, Association of Professional > Futurists > Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070203/314e4d57/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:08:42 -0500 > From: Ben Goertzel > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: <1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B at goertzel.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > > Yes, but in the case of CF, many of the replicators have been > respected scientists at decent universities... not just crackpots in > science fair experiments... > > I don't really care about theoretical questions about hypothetical > situations, I'm more interesting in talking about the details of this > particular case, which you are not informed about... > > Ben > > > > On Feb 3, 2007, at 1:02 PM, John K Clark wrote: > > > "Ben Goertzel" > > > >> The experiments are simple but hard to get right > > > > One of the greatest understatements of all time! A simple well > > publicized > > experiment that was true but imposable to confirm for 17 years > > would be > > unprecedented in Science, at least for the last few centuries; I > > think you'd > > have to go back to Hero of Alexandria's steam engine or the Baghdad > > battery, > > and even then they weren't really well publicized. > > > > Ben, let me ask you a purely theoretical question, suppose two > > fairly well > > respected scientists had performed a simple experiment and claimed a > > revolutionary result, and suppose, just for the sake of argument > > they were > > wrong. What do you imagine the results would be 17 years later? I > > would > > think crackpots would still be repeating it in science fair > > experiments and > > they would still be claiming revolutionary results, and I would > > imagine real > > scientists would have forgotten about the entire sorry fiasco and > > moved on > > to more productive things. Does any of this sound familiar? > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:43:43 -0800 > From: "Gina Miller" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: <00cc01c7480e$ac3ba300$cd17b743 at BOXX> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi guys, to contribute, I spent the day making banners for Keith.These > animated gifs are available to you to post on your website, pass around or > forward in support of Keith. They are in various sizes, large, medium and > small. Now I recommend the gifs - they have a real punch, but just in case > you need jpgs, they are available for you as well. These are all in one > place for you, here: http://nanogirl.com/keith/ > > I tried to make the model as much to Keith's likeness as I can, I'm not > sure > about his eyecolor but the most important point of the banner is the > message > and I think that is clear. > > You may pass the banners and the above link to whomever you like - however > if it is to press let me know. I know this banner is a small gesture, but > I > hope it helps in spreading the word and gathering support. All our best to > Arel. > > Keith - we are keeping our fingers crossed for you. > > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller > www.nanogirl.com > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:03:37 +0100 > From: Amara Graps > Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > > I looked at the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup for the first time in > my life. Not recommended. But Keith is mentioned by his supporters in > there, among that other stuff. To raise media awareness, these are the > valuable pieces of information that I saw posted in the newsgroup from > two persons (John Dorsay and Eldon). > > The jail has a media contact person (who would've thought?), named Susan > Quayle who will be at these numbers Monday morning, Arizona time. > > Therefore if you're a media person, use this. > 928-777-1924 > 928-771-3286 > > Main points about his legal status: > > 1. Keith was convicted of a misdemeanor offense in California. Can > a person be extradited from Arizona for a misdemeanor conviction? > > 2. Keith was convicted of "interfering with a religion", an offense > which is (as far as I know), unique to California. Can a person be > extradited from Arizona when he has not done anything that would be > considered illegal in Arizona? > > 3. The judge prohibited Keith from presenting a proper and complete > defense. Will this fact be considered when a decision is made about > extradition? > > (Jay, can you post this to your blog, under title: "Points for the Media" > ?) > > Amara > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:55:15 -0600 > From: Natasha Vita-More > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into > Custody > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: > <6.2.1.2.2.20070203115409.02ff0268 at pop-server.austin.rr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I don't know. Shall we create one? I can email Arel and get her input. > > Natasha > > At 11:51 AM 2/3/2007, you wrote: > >Natasha - do we have a good, one-paragraph summary detailing Keith's > >contributions to the Transhumanisim movement? > > > >Might give a bit more relevance to a posting on all our respective > >blogs & sites. > > > >On 2/3/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > > > > At 07:17 AM 2/3/2007, George Dvorsky wrote: > > > > > > > > > I just got this very disturbing email from Arel. Please do what you > can to > > > help. > > > Keith is a long, long time friend of many and this community and we > > must do > > > what we can to help him and Arel. > > > > > > Natasha > > > > > > Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, > Planetary > > > Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, > > > Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & > Culture > > > > > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the > circle, > > > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside > the > > > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system > > > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > wta-talk mailing list > > > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > > > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) > >bkdelong at pobox.com > >+1.617.797.8471 > > > >http://www.wkdelong.org Son. > >http://www.ianetsec.com Work. > >http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. > >http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. > >http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. > > > > > >PGP Fingerprint: > >38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE > > > >FOAF: > >http://foaf.brain-stream.org > >_______________________________________________ > >extropy-chat mailing list > >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > Natasha Vita-More > Design Media Artist - Futurist > PhD Candidate, > >Planetary > Collegium > Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy > Institute > Member, Association of Professional > Futurists > Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070203/e9dbc8b9/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:45:58 -0800 > From: "Dave Krieger" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Message-ID: > <8d49352c0702032345j4f344a9r18816d6c1c8fad3 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > The oldest old-timers might recognize my name. Keith's arrest was just > brought to my attention and I just caught up on the thread on the web > archive. I wanted to raise a couple of points about Scientology that I > haven't seen mentioned yet: > > First, please remember that Scientology is big on infiltration, and if > they identify the mailing list (and ExI) as the nexus of assistance > for Keith, they are likely to assign some of their operatives to > gather intelligence and inject noise... potentially, an incapacitating > level of noise. I'm glad to see that my attempt to post as a > non-member was rejected, but it may be also be prudent to change the > subscription policy to require approval for a while. The public web > archive should remain available, as it's a useful way to rally the > non-subscriber troops (like me), but any information that could be > useful to Scientology should definitely be kept to out-of-band email. > > Members should disregard any posts from anyone they don't know by > reputation (including me ;-) and in particular avoid assigning any > responsibility to any "volunteers" who aren't well-known within the > list. > > Second, I saw some references to Keith's Wikipedia article as a > proposed resource to provide to news media. Scientology may target the > article for vandalism (in fact I'm surprised they haven't already, but > then they never have had much 'net savvy); it may be best to > preemptively request that the article be locked. > > dk > Simpletoneity, n. The phenomenon of many people doing the same stupid > thing all at once. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:50:08 -0800 > From: "Dave Krieger" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Your message to extropy-chat awaits > moderator approval > To: "extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org" > Message-ID: > <8d49352c0702032350n4c212f46o3b8002969c4a0cbb at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Ah, list moderation... even better. Nice to see all those lessons we > learned back in the early '90's took. :-D > > dk > Deathicate, v. To speak in opposition to life extension, cryonics, > etc. "Guests are asked to refrain from deathicating in the pool." > > > On 2/3/07, extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > wrote: > > Your mail to 'extropy-chat' with the subject > > > > Re: Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > > > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > > > The reason it is being held: > > > > Post to moderated list > > > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > > notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel > > this posting, please visit the following URL: > > > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/confirm.cgi/extropy-chat/6f2e19ee245accd3e62aac7d8bb6c301440bccc3 > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:53:20 -0700 (GMT-07:00) > From: Terry Colvin > Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (Down Syndrome) New column NBICS and > Military Products out > To: "tlc-brotherhood at nexus.net" > Message-ID: > < > 31485175.1170298401260.JavaMail.root at mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > -----Forwarded Message----- > > > >An overview article describing nano-weapons programs in several countries > >is the first one I have seen. > > > >Terry > > > > > >-----Forwarded Message----- > >>From: Gregor Wolbring > >>Sent: Jan 30, 2007 5:47 PM > >>To: DOWN-SYN at LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU > >>Subj: New column NBICS and Military Products out > >> > >>< > http://www.innovationwatch.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours-2007-01-30.htm> > >> > >> > >>Cheers > >>Gregor > > > > > >Terry W. Colvin > >Sierra Vista, Arizona > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:55:28 +0100 > From: Amara Graps > Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- DIGG > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > Don't forget to 'digg' the article. Registration on digg is simple. > > http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:09:50 +0100 > From: Eugen Leitl > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- DIGG > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: <20070204120950.GI21677 at leitl.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 12:55:28PM +0100, Amara Graps wrote: > > Don't forget to 'digg' the article. Registration on digg is simple. > > > > http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona > > Great, and it made the reddit front page, too: > http://reddit.com/ > > #7 right now. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 191 bytes > Desc: Digital signature > Url : > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070204/0b9b6274/attachment-0001.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 16 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:40:45 -0600 > From: "TwiceIrish" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: <01ef01c74851$4e9de530$6401a8c0 at TwiceIrish> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Amara Graps" > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 2:03 AM > Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > > > > > > I looked at the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup for the first time in > > my life. Not recommended. But Keith is mentioned by his supporters in > > there, among that other stuff. To raise media awareness, these are the > > valuable pieces of information that I saw posted in the newsgroup from > > two persons (John Dorsay and Eldon). > > It's a strange newsgroup, hard to decipher for the uninitiated. > > Keith has many supporters many are working diligently to help him. > > > > > > The jail has a media contact person (who would've thought?), named Susan > > Quayle who will be at these numbers Monday morning, Arizona time. > > > > Therefore if you're a media person, use this. > > 928-777-1924 > > 928-771-3286 > > I believe there is a typo here. The correct number is perhaps > 928-771-1924. > > The phone numbers should be checked more thoroughly before being posted > anywhere else. > > > (snip) > > ~Shirley > > Shirley Dalzell > U.S. Flag Depot, Inc. > www.usflag.org > www.usflagdepot.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 17 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:20:19 +0100 > From: "Ricardo Barreira" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: > <5df798750702040520y3249b07ege35087a483f4cddc at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hello, > > An important problem is that no mainstream media has picked up any > news on this yet. I wanted to try submitting a story on this to > slashdot, but would like to do it with a link to a respectful news > website. > > People who can contact respectful journalists to run this, please do! > > Regards, > Ricardo Barreira > > On 2/4/07, Dave Krieger wrote: > > The oldest old-timers might recognize my name. Keith's arrest was just > > brought to my attention and I just caught up on the thread on the web > > archive. I wanted to raise a couple of points about Scientology that I > > haven't seen mentioned yet: > > > > First, please remember that Scientology is big on infiltration, and if > > they identify the mailing list (and ExI) as the nexus of assistance > > for Keith, they are likely to assign some of their operatives to > > gather intelligence and inject noise... potentially, an incapacitating > > level of noise. I'm glad to see that my attempt to post as a > > non-member was rejected, but it may be also be prudent to change the > > subscription policy to require approval for a while. The public web > > archive should remain available, as it's a useful way to rally the > > non-subscriber troops (like me), but any information that could be > > useful to Scientology should definitely be kept to out-of-band email. > > > > Members should disregard any posts from anyone they don't know by > > reputation (including me ;-) and in particular avoid assigning any > > responsibility to any "volunteers" who aren't well-known within the > > list. > > > > Second, I saw some references to Keith's Wikipedia article as a > > proposed resource to provide to news media. Scientology may target the > > article for vandalism (in fact I'm surprised they haven't already, but > > then they never have had much 'net savvy); it may be best to > > preemptively request that the article be locked. > > > > dk > > Simpletoneity, n. The phenomenon of many people doing the same stupid > > thing all at once. > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 18 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:20:40 -0600 > From: "TwiceIrish" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- Advice > from Lolits > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: <02a301c74867$a6429040$6401a8c0 at TwiceIrish> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > (This is advice from LOLITS, a representative of LOLITS is watching the > current situation of Keith too. ) > > > Bob wrote: > > People who care about someone in Keith's situation must contact the jail > authorities and present their concerns.the more letters the better. Let > them > know that political, activist and jail/prison reformers are watching > closely > to see how the inmate is treated, i.e. does he receive prescribed > medication, protection from other inmates, etc. Have someone from a > friendly > media source phone or inquire as to possibly interviewing Keith. Whether > they intend to or not, jail officials are now very concerned about media > oversight about their operation(s). > Constant vigilance is what is going to be needed. Mention group names, > like > the LOLITS, and others you find on the internet in your communication with > the jail administration. If he has received threats - with or without > evidence - make the officials aware of that and of your concern. Let them > know immediately should anything happen that Keith has friends who will > follow up on any harm that comes to him with a media and political blitz > about how they failed to keep him safe. > > > Bob - Everything Military > > -- > > ~Shirley > Shirley Dalzell > U.S. Flag Depot, Inc. > www.usflag.org > www.usflagdepot.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 19 > Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:21:38 -0600 > From: Natasha Vita-More > Subject: [extropy-chat] ATTN: DAY 1 - KEITH HENSON LEGAL SUPPORT FUND > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org;, cryonet at cryonet.org, > wta-talk at transhumanism.org, extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com > Cc: RU Sirius > Message-ID: > <6.2.1.2.2.20070204091652.044ab5f8 at pop-server.austin.rr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Friends, > > On first day of this campaign we raised $930.00 in donations! Thank > you! Please forward this to anyone and everyone. > > "We are providing Extropy Institute's website as a location to send > donations in support of Keith. You can locate the donation page here: > http://www.extropy.org or go directly here: > http://www.extropy.org/membership.htm " > > Please help by donating any amount you can. Even $5.00 will help. > > Many thanks, > Natasha > > > Natasha Vita-More > Design Media Artist - Futurist > PhD Candidate, > >Planetary > Collegium > Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy > Institute > Member, Association of Professional > Futurists > Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070204/dae28075/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 20 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:43:40 +0100 > From: Amara Graps > Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- How to > Reach Newspapers > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > Ricardo Barreira rbarreira at gmail.com : > >Hello, > > >An important problem is that no mainstream media has picked up any > >news on this yet. I wanted to try submitting a story on this to > >slashdot, but would like to do it with a link to a respectful news > >website. > > >People who can contact respectful journalists to run this, please do! > > >Regards, > >Ricardo Barreira > > It's a shame that Boing Boing are choosing not to step into this fire. > Understandable, perhaps. Others are working on trying to reach > 'respectable media'. > > I've sent the below to a couple of different people at a large Arizona > newspaper. If you fill in your particular slant on this, customizing it > as you like, then more newspapers, can be covered. Choose from the list > of newspapers here, and begin. Go to particular people listed at the > 'Contact' who work at News desks and Features desks and address them > by name in your email. > > California and Arizona Newspapers > http://www.50states.com/news/arizona.htm > http://www.50states.com/news/calif.htm > > > Amara > > ============ FILL IN and email ======================================== > > Dear XXX > > I am a reader of your newspaper XXX. This email is to alert you to a > story you or your colleagues may be interested in covering. I've > collected the relevant points into a press release, below. If you have > questions, you can reach me at this email or XXX (phone). You can gain > more information from Arel Lucas [(928) 445-4412 or (323) 712-5492], as > well. > > I've known Keith for XXX years as an accomplished scientist, engineer > and futurist. He's in a bad situation and any media coverage that your > newspaper could put towards his story may just protect him from what he > and his family fear most. > > Sincerely yours, > YOU > Your email > > > Anti-Scientology activist Keith Henson taken into custody > > > Keith Henson, an outspoken anti-Scientology activist, was arrested last > Friday (February 2) night by Prescott, Arizona Police (928) 771-3286, > and is currently being held at the Prescott Detention Center in > Arizona [1]. His wife, Arel Lucas, says she is unsure why he was stopped, > but upon checking his Canadian driver's license, he taken into custody > on a 6-year old bench warrant issued by a Riverside County, California > judge. He is slated to appear before a judge on Monday February 5, > regarding a Riverside County (Scientology related) warrant [2]. > > Henson's troubles began in 2001 when he was convicted of "interfering > with a religion", a misdemeanor under California law, for picketing > outside Scientology's facility in Hemet, California. He left to Canada > before serving any time after receiving a number of death threats. He > was deported from Canada in 2005 after his asylum bid was rejected. His > location until February 2, 2007 was unknown. His legal situation since > 2001 raises questions regarding the influence of the Church of > Scientology (CoS) over Riverside County's judicial system and the > changes in Canada's position on Keith's refugee status after 9-11. His > present situation raises more legal points [3]. > > Lucas strongly suspects that the Church of Scientology is involved in > Henson's current incarceration and fears for both his life and her own. > The death threats have been constant since 2001. Scientology's power and > reach has become considerable in recent years, leading to accusations > that it is not so much a cult as it is an organized crime outfit that > disguises itself as a religious organization. > > > Learn more about Keith Henson and his situation > ------------------------------------------------ > > Arel Lucas, wife of Keith Henson: (928) 445-4412 or (323) 712-5492. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson > http://freekeithhenson.blogspot.com/ > http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona > http://www.jefallbright.net/keith_henson > > Some background on CoS here > > http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-scientology18dec18,0,2963052.story?coll=la-homepage-calendar-widget > > > [1] Yavapai County Government: Clerk of Superior Court > 120 S Cortez St > Prescott, AZ 86303 > (928) 771-3312 > http://ww2.co.yavapai.az.us/departments/Sct/SctHome.asp > > He is case number 389486 and booked under his full name, Howard > Keith Henson. > > [2] The jail has a media contact person, named Susan Quayle, who will be > at these numbers Monday morning, Arizona time. > 928-777-1924 > 928-771-3286 > > [3] Main points about his legal status: > 1. Keith was convicted of a misdemeanor offense in California. Can > a person be extradited from Arizona for a misdemeanor conviction? > > 2. Keith was convicted of "interfering with a religion", an offense > which is (as far as I know), unique to California. Can a person be > extradited from Arizona when he has not done anything that would be > considered illegal in Arizona? > > 3. The judge prohibited Keith from presenting a proper and complete > defense. Will this fact be considered when a decision is made about > extradition? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 21 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:00:12 -0500 > From: "John K Clark" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c at MyComputer> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > "Ben Goertzel" > > > many of the replicators have been respected > > scientists at decent universities > > And yet these respected scientists at decent universities prefer to be > published in Spoon Bending Digest rather than Nature or Science. How odd. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 22 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:23:17 -0600 > From: "Jay Dugger" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Your message to extropy-chat awaits > moderator approval > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: > <5366105b0702040923k32465d50uc5002f929fea611e at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > 11:21 Sunday, 4 February 2007 > > On 2/4/07, Dave Krieger wrote: > > Ah, list moderation... even better. Nice to see all those lessons we > > learned back in the early '90's took. :-D > > > > Only user error, I fear. I meant to send a screen shot to Robert, but > hit "Reply to all" by accident. This sent it to the list, and the list > manager rejected an oversized attachement. > > > > -- > Jay Dugger > http://jaydugger.suprglu.com > Sometimes the delete key serves best. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 23 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:40:53 -0600 > From: "Jay Dugger" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: > <5366105b0702040940q19b48df5mfcac97f1261cc334 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > 11:39 Sunday, 4 February 2007 > > On 2/4/07, TwiceIrish wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Amara Graps" > [snip] > > > > Therefore if you're a media person, use this. > > > 928-777-1924 > > > 928-771-3286 > > > > I believe there is a typo here. The correct number is perhaps > 928-771-1924. > > > > The phone numbers should be checked more thoroughly before being posted > > anywhere else. > > > > > > (snip) > > > > ~Shirley > > > I can verify the second phone number reaches the Prescott Detention > Center. I'll post all of these after I verify the first number. > -- > Jay Dugger > http://jaydugger.suprglu.com > Sometimes the delete key serves best. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 24 > Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:00:41 -0600 > From: Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0 at satx.rr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > At 12:00 PM 2/4/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > >"Ben Goertzel" > > > > > many of the replicators have been respected > > > scientists at decent universities > > > >And yet these respected scientists at decent universities prefer to be > >published in Spoon Bending Digest rather than Nature or Science. How odd. > > It would only be odd if Nature and Science did not have a policy in > place of refusing to consider papers on this topic, since the topic > is agreed to be MEGA-BULLSHIT. There must be a way for controversial > claims to break through such an impasse, but it's not obvious how. > Presumably if any of the researchers ever develop a highly reliable > fuel cell and put it on the market without getting successfully > prosecuted for fraud, there'll be some mild throat-clearing and the > papers will start to appear. Nothing succeeds like excess > (heat)--although it took long enough for the greenhouse effect to be > accepted. > > Damien Broderick > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 25 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 20:22:50 +0100 > From: Eugen Leitl > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Your message to extropy-chat awaits > moderator approval > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: <20070204192250.GP21677 at leitl.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:23:17AM -0600, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > Only user error, I fear. I meant to send a screen shot to Robert, but > > Nope, no user error. > > > hit "Reply to all" by accident. This sent it to the list, and the list > > manager rejected an oversized attachement. > > All new users are on moderation by default. Size limits are orthogonal to > that. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 191 bytes > Desc: Digital signature > Url : > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070204/f3cf9745/attachment-0001.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 26 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 20:32:05 +0100 > From: "scerir" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97 at archimede> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > the Italian National Agency for the New Technologies, > Energy and the Environmental (ENEA) > http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/index-eng.htm > has a (slow) page about cold fusion > (last update: 2003) and this paper > > A.De Ninno, A. Frattolillo, A. Rizzo, > E. del Giudice, G. Preparata > "Experimental evidence of 4He production > in a cold fusion experiment" > RT/2002/41/FUS > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf. > www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-FUS.pdf > > They write, at the end, "The presence of 4He provides > evidence that a nuclear process occurred in the cell; > a nuclear reaction has been obtained with purely chemical > procedures." > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 27 > Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 13:44:01 -0600 > From: Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings > To: ExI chat list > Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070204134137.0224f910 at satx.rr.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > At 08:32 PM 2/4/2007 +0100, Serafino wrote: > > >the Italian National Agency for the New Technologies, > >Energy and the Environmental (ENEA) > >http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/index-eng.htm > >has a (slow) page about cold fusion > >(last update: 2003) > > Yeah, latest news page update seems to be 2003. And yet they haven't > repudiated their earlier reports. > > Is this a govt supported lab? > > Damien Broderick > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 28 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:19:54 -0700 > From: "Jeff Davis" > Subject: [extropy-chat] String theory testable? > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Extropes, > > I've never felt encouraged that the extra dimensions of string theory > would be detectable/accessible from our "dimensional level" of > reality. My (barely dilettante-level) impression was that > substantially more energy (orders of magnitude?) would be needed to > "blast open" the subject "extra-dimensional" structures than was > available using current particle-physics high-energy collision gear. > > So the following article --hope it's more than fluff -- came as a > pleasant surprise: > > Physicists find way to 'see' extra dimensions > http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/uow-pfw020207.php > > The researchers use the big bang itself to provide the requisite > energy, and the heavens themselves as the data recording "device". > Gives new meaning to the credo of proto-extropians past: > > "A sentient being's reach should exceed ver grasp, or what's a heaven > for?" > > Robert Browning (mostly) > > -- > Best, Jeff Davis > > "Everything's hard till you > know how to do it." > Ray Charles > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 29 > Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:32:32 +0100 > From: Amara Graps > Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com > >Is this a govt supported lab? > > Yes. (ENEA-Frascati is five minutes away, do you want a picture ? :-) ) > > "Supported", as in 'adequate money for the Italian scientists and their > research' is, however, a debatable topic (for all Italian government > supported laboratories). > > Amara > > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 41, Issue 5 > ******************************************* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Feb 5 02:04:21 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 03:04:21 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody In-Reply-To: <3aff9e290702041646l705dfa35vb1751fb8f1d0689f@mail.gmail.com> References: <3aff9e290702041646l705dfa35vb1751fb8f1d0689f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <60262.86.130.30.114.1170641061.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Here is my own minor contribution: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2007/02/fighting_bad_enlightenment_business_practices.html -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Mon Feb 5 02:11:45 2007 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 18:11:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Tech Awards Announcement: 5 awards of $50,000 In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070201192118.03d4a458@igc.org> Message-ID: <685115.46103.qm@web32802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear futurist friends, The Millennium Project, American Council for the United Nations University, was an inspiration for The Tech Museum Awards. If you know of any worthwhile innovations in any of the 5 considered areas (education, equality, environment, economic development, and health), please nominate them or tell them to self sominate for each one of the five $50,000 awards: www.techawards.org Futuristically yours, Jos? Luis Cordeiro (www.cordeiro.org) Director, Venezuela, The Millennium Project (www.StateOfTheFuture.org) ============================================================ Anyone can nominate anyone for any technological innovation that benefits humanity for $50,000 award - Five will be given this year at the Tech Awards: TECH MUSEUM AWARDING $250,000 IN CASH PRIZES Global Call for Nominations of Innovators Using Technology to Benefit Humanity The Tech Museum Awards is a unique and prestigious program that honors and awards innovators from around the world who use technology to benefit humanity in the categories of: Education, Equality, Environment, Economic Development, and Health. Reward those making a difference and nominate today. A simple nomination form can be found at www.techawards.org . Self-nominations are accepted and encouraged. Individuals, nonprofit organizations, and companies are all eligible. Program details, including judging criteria, can be found at The Tech Museum Awards website listed above. Each year, 25 Laureates are honored at a gala dinner, invited to participate in press and media coverage, and introduced to a network of influential advisors. An inspirational and unforgettable event, the black-tie celebration will be held at The Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, California, on November 7, 2007. One Laureate in each category will be granted a $50,000 cash prize. Gillian Caldwell of WITNESS, 2003 Laureate in the Equality award category and cash prize recipient, called The Tech Museum Awards "...a truly remarkable program that has given WITNESS acclaim for using technology to document human rights abuses. I was deeply honored to be recognized, along with 24 other innovators from around the world who are working to improve human life through technology. The exposure generated from receiving this award and the $50,000 cash prize will surely lead to expanded services, awareness, and improved solutions for ending violations of human rights." We encourage you to forward this announcement to any contacts you have that may be interested in nominating a candidate for this award. Thank you for your support. Nominations Deadline: March 26, 2007 www.techawards.org The Tech Museum Awards Partners & Sponsors -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Feb 5 05:04:55 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:04:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: RE: Fwd: Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070204230412.04453e98@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I am fowarding this message from Amara D' Angelica > > From: COLIN BENNET [ mailto:sharkley1 at btinternet.com ] > > > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:47 PM > > > To: amaraa at gmail.com > > > Subject: Scientology > > > > > > Hi Amara, > > > I have been warning people on Jack's List about > > > Scientology for some time, particularly about the activities of Bill > > > Ryan. If there is anyway I can help you, tell this dreadful story, > > > please get in touch. > > > Colin Bennett > > > Author, London > > > The New Fortean Times > > > www.combat-diaries.co.uk Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 06:47:19 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:47:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] SNOWCRASHING INTO THE DIAMOND AGE: AN ESSAY BY EXTROPIA DaSILVA Message-ID: <470a3c520702042247v3daae585u913d130b4f7198b4@mail.gmail.com> I have posted on my blog a fascinating new essay by Extropia DaSilva: SNOWCRASHING INTO THE DIAMOND AGE http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/snowcrashing_into_the_diamond_age_an_essay_by_extropia_dasilva/ See also the previous profile Extropia DaSilva, transhumanist avatar http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/extropia_dasilva_transhumanist_avatar/ From rbarreira at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 14:35:29 2007 From: rbarreira at gmail.com (Ricardo Barreira) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:35:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Slashdot story regarding Keith Henson's arrest Message-ID: <5df798750702050635s2b4a0887v811662b950c69a6f@mail.gmail.com> Hello, I've submitted a slashdot story regarding Keith Henson's arrest. With the new collaborative system for approving stories, anyone (?) who has a slashdot account (they're free) can vote for the story. Go to the following URL: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl and search for the word scientology (it might be in the second or third results page). Regards, Ricardo From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Feb 5 16:41:54 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:41:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] PHOENIX: KPNX Channel 12 Interviews Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070205104003.02f7b2c0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> If anyone is attending Keith Hanson's hearing or is in Phoenix and can meet with Brandon Kline of KPNX, channel 12, local Phoenix, please call him at 602-694-1045. Can be on-camera, or off-camera for privacy. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon Feb 5 16:47:55 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:47:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer><1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org><001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002d01c74945$70c26e70$4e054e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > It would only be odd if Nature and Science did not have a policy in > place of refusing to consider papers on this topic, since the topic > is agreed to be MEGA-BULLSHIT. There must be a way for controversial > claims to break through such an impasse If it really is MEGA-BULLSHIT as I am certain it is then you are right, there is no way the cold fusion faithful can break through the impasse and get published in a journal (or just a website) that was not downright comical. If in the extraordinarily unlikely event there really is something to it and all the editors at Nature and Science have had the intelligence of The Three Stooges for the last 17 years then the way around the impasse is called "Physical Review Letters" or dozens of other perfectly respectable journals that would make every physicist in the world sit up and take notice. I repeat what I said before because I think it is very important, a simple very well publicized experiment that was true but imposable to be confirmed for 17 years would be UNPRECEDENTED in science. But in all fairness I should add that they are not as bad as the ESP people, their experiments haven't been confirmed in about 150 years. Ben Goertzel Wrote: > Nature and Science refuse to publish CF-related papers, for stupid > reasons as Beaudette discusses... Well I agree with you on one thing, somebody is stupid, either all the editors at Nature and Science for the last 17 years have been stupid or this Beaudette person is. My God people don't you even have a rudimentary bullshit detector? Fantastic claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this just reeks of junk science! John K Clark From russell.rukin at lineone.net Mon Feb 5 17:02:15 2007 From: russell.rukin at lineone.net (Russell Rukin) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:02:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- DIGG Front page on Digg now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45C76317.4020608@lineone.net> Made the front page... although a different digg. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/4/13026/70551 Russell R Amara Graps wrote: >Don't forget to 'digg' the article. Registration on digg is simple. > >http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona > >Amara > > > From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Feb 5 18:33:05 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:33:05 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Arizona: Freedom of Speach! Journalist Ready to Meet Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070205123128.047a9ef8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> We have a journalist waiting to meet someone in Phoenix at the courthouse to talk about freedom of speech. Brandon Kline of KPNX, channel 12, local Phoenix, please call him at 602-694-1045. Natasha Vita-More Design Media Artist - Futurist PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Mon Feb 5 20:29:01 2007 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:29:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] spreading the communication Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- DIGG Front page on Digg now Message-ID: <9b9887c80702051229j2058426ap6fd2b13180128d87@mail.gmail.com> i sent this link to oprah.com story section. ilsa bartlett On 2/5/07, Russell Rukin wrote: > > Made the front page... although a different digg. > http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/4/13026/70551 > > Russell R > > Amara Graps wrote: > > >Don't forget to 'digg' the article. Registration on digg is simple. > > > >http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_critic_jailed_in_Arizona > > > >Amara > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coletrane www.mikyo.com/ilsa http://rewiring.blogspot.com www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Mon Feb 5 20:38:28 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:38:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- Updates Message-ID: Some Updates http://freekeithhenson.blogspot.com/ Result of 5 February Hearing At the hearing, Keith Henson's legal representation, Michael Kielsky, stated that they are fighting extradition and requested Keith's release. The presiding judge set a court date for March 5, 2007 at 1:30 pm in the Justice Court, and set the security at $7,500 cash or bond, with standard conditions. The story has been "slashdotted" http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/05/1334203 linking to the Wikipedia article. Does anyone else want to try to 'lock' it? I tried, by writing to 'info-en-o at wikimedia.org ' but I might be clueless about the procedure. and the "digg" on R.U. Sirius' article is soaring http://digg.com/politics/Scientology_Fugitive_update Amara From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Feb 5 21:56:19 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:56:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Update: Henson Support Fund Message-ID: <380-22007215215619436@M2W018.mail2web.com> As of 2/5/07 at 3:00 pm central time, we have $4,660.13 in our fund. Thank you for your generous donations. Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 5 22:13:39 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:13:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indifference (was Coin Flip Paradox) In-Reply-To: References: <9980.25050.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A person interested in this subject wrote to me in private e-mail, suggesting that I should elaborate and clarify my meaning about a certain sentence I wrote here. I'm embarrassed because English is my first language and I have no excuse for not communicating my meanings clearly. I'm sorry if my meanings are so unclear. If they are unclear then I'm grateful to the person who pointed it out. The dubious passage of mine was this one: "...the frequency theory is an objectivist, non-epistemic account of probability in which the epistemic principle of indifference is irrelevant and nonsensical." I was responding here to Stu's argument that the principle of indifference is somehow provable according to frequentist rationale. I maintain it is not. On the frequency theory of probability, probabilities are not in any way subjective judgments. They are instead properties of the objective world. They exist "out there" in the supposed world of objective physical reality, as opposed to "in here" in the subjective world of the mind. The principle of indifference implies an epistemic (subjective) idea of probability. I think it is impossible to prove the logical veracity of the principle of indifference given the objectivist assumptions of frequentism. This is why I wrote that the frequency theory is an objectivist, non-epistemic account of probability in which the epistemic (non-objectivist) principle of indifference is irrelevant and nonsensical. Under frequentism the principle of indifference is neither true nor false. It is nonsensical. My apologies if that idea is not clear. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 5 22:15:38 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:15:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Indifference (was Coin Flip Paradox) In-Reply-To: References: <9980.25050.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: A person interested in this subject wrote to me in private e-mail, suggesting that I should elaborate and clarify my meaning about a certain sentence I wrote here. I'm embarrassed because English is my first language and I have no excuse for not communicating my meanings clearly. I'm sorry if my meanings are so unclear. If they are unclear then I'm grateful to the person who pointed it out. The dubious passage of mine was this one: "...the frequency theory is an objectivist, non-epistemic account of probability in which the epistemic principle of indifference is irrelevant and nonsensical." I was responding here to Stu's argument that the principle of indifference is somehow provable according to frequentist rationale. I maintain it is not. On the frequency theory of probability, probabilities are not in any way subjective judgments. They are instead properties of the objective world. They exist "out there" in the supposed world of objective physical reality, as opposed to "in here" in the subjective world of the mind. The principle of indifference implies an epistemic (subjective) idea of probability. I think it is impossible to prove the veracity of the principle of indifference given the objectivist assumptions of frequentism. This is why I wrote that the frequency theory is an objectivist, non-epistemic account of probability in which the epistemic (non-objectivist) principle of indifference is irrelevant and nonsensical. Under frequentism I think the principle of indifference is neither true nor false. I think it is nonsensical. My apologies if that idea is not clear. -gts From ben at goertzel.org Tue Feb 6 02:38:53 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:38:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <002d01c74945$70c26e70$4e054e0c@MyComputer> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer><1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org><001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com> <002d01c74945$70c26e70$4e054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <0EEF4165-2F84-4D1D-AC65-636ACFB2B077@goertzel.org> > > Well I agree with you on one thing, somebody is stupid, either all the > editors at Nature and Science for the last 17 years have been > stupid or this > Beaudette person is. The editors at Nature and Science may be intelligent, but have not paid much attention to this issue due to their egos and particular attitudes. Beaudette has paid a lot more attention to the issue, obviously. > My God people don't you even have a rudimentary > bullshit detector? I have a very good bullshit detector, and it tells me quite definitively that YOU are very much FULL OF MEGA-BULLSHIT!! ;-) Whether you are right or wrong, your attitude is profoundly unscientific. Hopefully once the Singularity comes, you'll choose some neural upgrades; and at that point, you'll see the error of the ways of your human predecessor... -- Ben G From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 6 04:40:55 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:40:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- Updates [2] Message-ID: A good summary of events regarding Keith http://news.com.com/Tom+Cruise+missile+jokester+arrested/2100-1030_3-6156516.html Amara From amara at amara.com Tue Feb 6 04:58:32 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:58:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- Updates [3] Message-ID: Keith is out of jail now. Amara From jonkc at att.net Tue Feb 6 06:28:12 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 01:28:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer><1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org><001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com><002d01c74945$70c26e70$4e054e0c@MyComputer> <0EEF4165-2F84-4D1D-AC65-636ACFB2B077@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <00b701c749b8$059eece0$02044e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" >The editors at Nature and Science may be intelligent, but have not paid >much attention to this issue due to their egos Nature and Science are not the only fish in the sea, there are dozens of other fine journals, but apparently those editors are also too envious and full of themselves to publish a superb scientific paper. Every single one of them, and for 17 years! I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. Noah's Ark, astrology, picture of Jesus found in a pizza level ridiculous. > Beaudette has paid a lot more attention to the issue, obviously. Yea, I bet he spends more time on flying saucers and spoon bending too. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Tue Feb 6 08:26:08 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:26:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] [declan@well.com: [Politech] Keith Henson, Scientology critic, arrested in "Tom Cruise" missile case [fs]] Message-ID: <20070206082608.GU21677@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh ----- From: Declan McCullagh Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:59:27 -0800 To: politech at politechbot.com Subject: [Politech] Keith Henson, Scientology critic, arrested in "Tom Cruise" missile case [fs] User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Macintosh/20061207) Keith Henson, an engineer, writer, programmer, and critic of Scientology was arrested on Friday: http://freekeithhenson.blogspot.com/' He had been convicted in 2001 on some bizarre charges of threatening Scientology that grew out of a Usenet post and his picketing: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,43420,00.html At which time he fled to Canada and sought asylum, but subsequently returned to the states: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02072.html http://www.politechbot.com/p-02122.html After interviewing his defense counsel and a prosecutor today, I wrote an article that you can find here: http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6156516.html R.U. Sirius' writeup is also thorough: http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/02/04/scientology-fugitive-arrested/ http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/02/05/a-reprint-of-an-interview-with-keith-henson-by-ru-sirius-2/ Scientology's position paper on copyright they sent to Politech a few years ago: http://www.politechbot.com/p-03917.html http://www.politechbot.com/p-03929.html And some background on Scientology: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html http://www.spaink.net/fishman/home.html For background, I'll include part of the Usenet thread about the "Tom Cruise" missile below. -Declan --- Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: F... at SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) Date: 2000/07/10 Subject: Re: "Gold Base" French-German ICBM / Tom Cruise Missle Coordinates Keith Henson wrote: >Patrick Volk wrote: >snip >> The range of a Pluton MRBM = [Deleted for purpose of national >> security] >> CEP on the platform = [Deleted for purpose of national security], >> although I imagine probably around 750 yards. > No way. Modern weapons are accurate to a matter of a few tens > of yards. The terminal guidence ones are good to single digits. You're using the dumbed-down GPS for that, though, aren't you? The military GPS resolution is going to give you an impact point within _feet_ of the desired destination point, isn't it? And even if not, with Keith Henson up on the hill providing on-target IR illumination, GPS won't even be needed. }:-} --- Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: pjv... at home.com (Patrick Volk) Date: 2000/07/11 Subject: Re: "Gold Base" French-German ICBM / Tom Cruise Missle Coordinates On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:09:02 GMT, nos... at holysmoke.org (Shy David ... >Cult Compound Guard House > 33N50.021 >116W59.274 ... .. meanwhile, back at HQ *gets out slide rule* The range of a Pluton MRBM = [Deleted for purpose of national security] CEP on the platform = [Deleted for purpose of national security], although I imagine probably around 750 yards. Hey, wait... is that a French flag on that new weather station outside of gold base? Hmm... Says here the French government has just purchased 3 square miles of territory from the Mexican government for an escargot farm in Baja California. And they've asked for some cleared airspace between there and Gold Base... to test the Concorde.. Hmm... I'll have to check what C3I has.. --- Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: Keith Henson Date: 2000/07/11 Subject: Re: "Gold Base" French-German ICBM / Tom Cruise Missle Coordinates Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author Patrick Volk wrote: snip > The range of a Pluton MRBM = [Deleted for purpose of national > security] > CEP on the platform = [Deleted for purpose of national security], > although I imagine probably around 750 yards. No way. Modern weapons are accurate to a matter of a few tens of yards. The terminal guidence ones are good to single digits. Keith Henson --- Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: pjv... at home.com (Patrick Volk) Date: 2000/07/11 Subject: Re: "Gold Base" French-German ICBM / Tom Cruise Missle Coordinates >You're using the dumbed-down GPS for that, though, aren't you? The >military GPS resolution is going to give you an impact point within >_feet_ of the desired destination point, isn't it? And even if not, >with Keith Henson up on the hill providing on-target IR illumination, >GPS won't even be needed. }:-} With a MRBM, it's about the equivilant of standing on top of the Empire State Building, and hawking a lugie into a shot glass on the street below. I was reckoning that the French haven't improved their platform stability to that point. Not to mention, if the CoS were to do a high-altitude EMP burst.... Plus, I like Keith too much to have him on a hill within 2 miles of a site where 300 kilotons of hurt is gonna rain down... Keith, if you're gonna be there... Get the SPF 8000 sunblock... and some sunglasses. :) [btw: Deleted for reasons of national security = I don't know, and didn't feel like checking the Organization of American Scientists site for the details] --- _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Feb 6 10:51:00 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:51:00 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Keith [Henson] Taken into Custody- Updates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/5/07, Amara Graps wrote: > Some Updates > > http://freekeithhenson.blogspot.com/ > > Result of 5 February Hearing > > At the hearing, Keith Henson's legal representation, Michael Kielsky, > stated that they are fighting extradition and requested Keith's release. > The presiding judge set a court date for March 5, 2007 at 1:30 pm in the > Justice Court, and set the security at $7,500 cash or bond, with > standard conditions. > The New York Times and CNET news now has a supportive article on Keith. (Pretty bad publicity for Xology as well). BillK From ben at goertzel.org Tue Feb 6 15:24:05 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:24:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <00b701c749b8$059eece0$02044e0c@MyComputer> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer><1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org><001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com><002d01c74945$70c26e70$4e054e0c@MyComputer> <0EEF4165-2F84-4D1D-AC65-636ACFB2B077@goertzel.org> <00b701c749b8$059eece0$02044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <6B4624AE-0AE8-47BC-A0FB-A483C7B26209@goertzel.org> > >> Beaudette has paid a lot more attention to the issue, obviously. > > Yea, I bet he spends more time on flying saucers and spoon bending > too. > > John K Clark You lose the bet. How much money are you going to send me? From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Feb 6 15:58:45 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:58:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <6B4624AE-0AE8-47BC-A0FB-A483C7B26209@goertzel.org> References: <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> <20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> <35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org> <003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> <1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org> <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com> <002d01c74945$70c26e70$4e054e0c@MyComputer> <0EEF4165-2F84-4D1D-AC65-636ACFB2B077@goertzel.org> <00b701c749b8$059eece0$02044e0c@MyComputer> <6B4624AE-0AE8-47BC-A0FB-A483C7B26209@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070206095657.024f2c88@satx.rr.com> At 10:24 AM 2/6/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: > >> Beaudette has paid a lot more attention to the issue, obviously. > > > Yea, I bet he spends more time on flying saucers and spoon bending > > too. > > > > John K Clark > > >You lose the bet. How much money are you going to send me? Hey, since I was the one who introduced Beaudette's book into this discussion, I want a share of the bet payout too! Damien Broderick From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Feb 6 17:21:32 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:21:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Update: Keith Henson Support Fund Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070206111103.02f9cc98@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Greetings, As of this morning, Extropy Institute has received donations in the amount of $5,089.00. A check is being issued to Arel Lucas on behalf of Keith Henson today. Any further donations will be sent to Arel a week from now. If there continues to be more donations, we will leave the support fund open to receive those donations for Keith. Many thanks for your ongoing kindness and generosity. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Feb 6 20:09:00 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:09:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070131091915.03ae7448@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com> <003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer> <002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer> <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org> <45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com> <001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com> <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> >I remember with near horror a time when a very senior scientist (not >in geology) went off on a disjointed emotional rant that was scary to >behold. (He was shaking with rage.) I was reading *his* copy of >_Scientific American_ at his house and made some innocent comment about an >article on plate tectonics. Clark's "BULLSHIT" doesn't compare, though >perhaps that's the effect of a text only channel. > >I made a post about this on the memetics list which never drew any >comment. I will repost it here if there is interest. Looks like no interest. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Feb 6 21:05:37 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:05:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP References: <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com> <003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer> <002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer> <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org> <45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com> <001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com> <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070206150310.02372070@satx.rr.com> At 03:09 PM 2/6/2007 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: >Looks like no interest. > >Keith This is the coolest re-entry from the Jaws of Hell that I've ever seen! You doing okay, man? We're worried about you! (Or is this a post queued on yr machine since before the buggers nabbed you, and just now sent when you booted up yr machine?) Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Feb 6 20:19:02 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:19:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ray gun In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0602040650w61c2e230pec1b6b8e45236dd8@mail.gmail.co m> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060203234309.04efec00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <1138914555_52661@S1.cableone.net> <6.2.1.2.0.20060203115336.01ebef10@pop-server.satx.rr.com> <02ac01c628f1$ee5b0650$c00d4e0c@MyComputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20060203234309.04efec00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060204124553.04f17298@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:50 PM 2/4/2006 +0000, you wrote: Found this unsent in my out buffer. Keith >On 2/4/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> >wrote: >>The original (stone age) evolved purpose of war was to kill a lot of >>warriors. Modern wars are less discriminating. > >It's the other way around: the evolved function of war is to eliminate >competitors. Sometimes women and children would be kept alive, but often >they would be killed off. The idea that noncombatants are sacrosanct is a >modern one. I think history, especially that of primitive peoples, would support women (if not children) usually being booty in tribal wars. The logic of my model for stone age wars is *really* twisted, but I think there is a case for it. First, humans have had no significant predators besides other humans for a *long* time. Certainly back to fire and probably back to the first chipped rocks 2 plus million years ago. Second, our line has always been able to over fill our ecological niche. We know war has been a major population control mode for people living close to the stone age. Excellent background material here: http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf Published in Anthropological Quarterly, 73.1 (2000), 20-34. THE HUMAN MOTIVATIONAL COMPLEX: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE CAUSES OF HUNTER-GATHERER FIGHTING "For instance, one critic (McCauley 1990: 3) queried why, if fighting was beneficial for inclusive fitness, was it not continuous and ubiquitous. "He failed to realize that fighting, like any other behaviour, could be only one possible tactic for inclusive fitness, depending for its success, and activation, on the presence of specific conditions." Fighting neighbors with similar technology (rocks) was a risky business Because (iFighting wn the stone age fighting other humans wasumans fight when the ecological outlook is bad. and the risk of From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Feb 6 03:43:04 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:43:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses Message-ID: <746960.59148.qm@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anders Sandberg, Sat Jan 27 15:33:47 UTC 2007 wrote: >Smells can rather directly evoke memories and >emotions. They get directly integrated in a general >context in the hippocampal system rather than treated >as elements to be analysed and then put together. That's odd I always believed that touch and taste where elements that where analysed and then put together while, sight, smell and hearing could directly evoke memories and emotions. Could you please forward me some links, I'd be very interested in reading about it. Thanks Anna __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From exi at syzygy.com Tue Feb 6 21:12:01 2007 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 6 Feb 2007 21:12:01 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com> <003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer> <002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer> <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org> <45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com> <001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com> <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070206211201.11244.qmail@syzygy.com> >Looks like no interest. > >Keith We've had more pressing things to discuss in your absence. Welcome back! -eric From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Feb 6 21:03:41 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:03:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Where's the wow? Message-ID: This image provides a powerful example of the discord that can be detected between truth and high-powered marketing. Look at the expressions on the faces of these Microsoft agents. http://www.davinciinstitute.com/new/admin/content/FCKeditor/uploads/wown ow.jpg - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Feb 6 21:11:03 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:11:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer><0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org><005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer><008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2><7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com><003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer><002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer><9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org><45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com><001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com><001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith Henson wrote: > >I made a post about this on the memetics list which never drew any > >comment. I will repost it here if there is interest. > > Looks like no interest. > > Keith Some of us have been a bit distracted since Saturday. Welcome back. - Jef From george at betterhumans.com Tue Feb 6 21:30:08 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:30:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: References: <002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer> <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org> <45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com> <001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com> <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Good to see you back, Keith. George From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 6 21:17:42 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:17:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <516714.176.qm@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> Welcome back, Keith. Have your ears been burning?:) --- Keith Henson wrote: > > >I remember with near horror a time when a very > senior scientist (not > >in geology) went off on a disjointed emotional rant > that was scary to > >behold. (He was shaking with rage.) I was reading > *his* copy of > >_Scientific American_ at his house and made some > innocent comment about an > >article on plate tectonics. Clark's "BULLSHIT" > doesn't compare, though > >perhaps that's the effect of a text only channel. > > > >I made a post about this on the memetics list which > never drew any > >comment. I will repost it here if there is > interest. > > Looks like no interest. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "If we all did the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves." - Thomas Edison ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Feb 6 21:34:09 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:34:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Where's the wow? Message-ID: <380-2200722621349718@M2W034.mail2web.com> From: Jef Allbright >http://www.davinciinstitute.com/new/admin/content/FCKeditor/uploads/wown ow.jpg LOL!! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft? Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Feb 6 23:05:16 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:05:16 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <746960.59148.qm@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <746960.59148.qm@web37208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2040.86.151.136.15.1170803116.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Anna Taylor wrote: > Anders Sandberg, Sat Jan 27 15:33:47 UTC 2007 wrote: > >>Smells can rather directly evoke memories and >>emotions. They get directly integrated in a general >>context in the hippocampal system rather than treated >>as elements to be analysed and then put together. > > That's odd I always believed that touch and taste > where elements that where analysed and then put > together while, sight, smell and hearing could > directly evoke memories and emotions. > > Could you please forward me some links, I'd be very > interested in reading about it. Well, I have always heard this as the standard view among neuroscientists. At least my memory research colleagues (who mess around with related parts of the brain) never doubted it, and half of all textbooks of memory start with Proust's Madeleine-cookie quote. As a starter this paper is a nice overview: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/nature05405.html "Smell images and the flavour system in the human brain" Some others: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/8/4119 "Emotion, olfaction, and the human amygdala: Amygdala activation during aversive olfactory stimulation" (also, look at the citing papers below) http://impulse.schc.sc.edu/articles/2004_01_01_Hughes.pdf "Olfaction, Emotion & the Amygdala: arousal-dependent modulation of long-term autobiographical memory and its association with olfaction: beginning to unravel the Proust phenomenon?" http://www.sirc.org/publik/smell_emotion.html It can even enhance cognition: http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/5/415 "Chemosignals of Fear Enhance Cognitive Performance in Humans" -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Feb 6 23:08:11 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:08:11 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070206150310.02372070@satx.rr.com> References: <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com> <003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer> <002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer> <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org> <45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com> <001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070206150310.02372070@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2040.86.151.136.15.1170803291.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 03:09 PM 2/6/2007 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > >>Looks like no interest. >> >>Keith > > This is the coolest re-entry from the Jaws of Hell that I've ever > seen! Seconded. Great to have you back! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jonkc at att.net Tue Feb 6 23:15:54 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:15:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP References: <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer><0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org><005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer><008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2><7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com><003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer><002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer><9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org><45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com><001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com><001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070206150310.02372070@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <035901c74a44$d3fc7e40$99044e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > This is the coolest re-entry from the Jaws of Hell that I've ever > seen! You know something Damien, you are absolotly correct, that was pretty damn cool. WELCOM BACK KEITH!!! John K Clark From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Feb 6 21:43:42 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:43:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" Message-ID: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> Does anyone have an opinion of what would be the top three "GameChangers"* coming from 2010 to 2030 in the area of interactive media and entertainment from a consumer point of view? *GameChanger: Its "mission is to deliver new business opportunities ? specifically, breakthrough or "game-changing" opportunities. ... GameChanger trades in a market for ideas, rewarding innovators with a variety of remuneration schemes, should their idea become a basis for a commercial venture. However, the GameChanger experience also strongly suggests that people compete for a chance to have their personal vision impact the corporate future." Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Feb 6 23:38:44 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:38:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP Message-ID: <380-22007226233844806@M2W038.mail2web.com> From: Damien Broderick >This is the coolest re-entry from the Jaws of Hell that I've ever >seen! You doing okay, man? We're worried about you! I noticed this. I thought it was way-cool. I mean, sliding in quietly and taking a seat without a big show. Elegant re-entry. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft? Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Feb 6 21:31:36 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:31:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses Message-ID: <380-22007226213136572@M2W007.mail2web.com> From: Anna Taylor >Anders Sandberg, Sat Jan 27 15:33:47 UTC 2007 wrote: >>Smells can rather directly evoke memories and >>emotions. They get directly integrated in a general >>context in the hippocampal system rather than treated >>as elements to be analysed and then put together.> >That's odd I always believed that touch and taste >where elements that where analysed and then put >together while, sight, smell and hearing could >directly evoke memories and emotions. Olfactoray is significantly associated with memories. I was goign to answer your post a while ago, but didn't think I was contributing anything new, so I hesiatated. But, for me sense of smell is key. >Could you please forward me some links, I'd be very >interested in reading about it. http://www.natasha.cc/olfactory.htm :-) Best wishes, Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From moses2k at gmail.com Wed Feb 7 01:42:16 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:42:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" In-Reply-To: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> References: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <3aff9e290702061742m25e118aclddcb924372981899@mail.gmail.com> Greater sensory immersion (HMDs, tactile, pharm, smell-o-vision), higher-bandwidth input ('power-gloves', EEG, speech rec, eye tracking, etc.), & improved AI (both soft design & game AI)? 2 cents - your mileage may vary. -Chris On 2/6/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Does anyone have an opinion of what would be the top three "GameChangers"* > coming from 2010 to 2030 in the area of interactive media and > entertainment > from a consumer point of view? > > *GameChanger: Its "mission is to deliver new business opportunities ? > specifically, breakthrough or "game-changing" opportunities. ... > GameChanger trades in a market for ideas, rewarding innovators with a > variety of remuneration schemes, should their idea become a basis for a > commercial venture. However, the GameChanger experience also strongly > suggests that people compete for a chance to have their personal vision > impact the corporate future." > > Natasha > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web.com - Microsoft(r) Exchange solutions from a leading provider - > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 spike66 at comcast.net Wed Feb 7 01:55:49 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:55:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200702070207.l1727btP008209@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > >I made a post about this on the memetics list which never drew any > >comment. I will repost it here if there is interest. > > Looks like no interest. > > Keith Keith right now we would be interested in anything you had to say, even if it is nothing more than "howdy friends, I am alive." We have been on edge worrying about you for the last several days pal. spike From pj at pj-manney.com Wed Feb 7 02:16:52 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:16:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun-ownership to homicide rate study query Message-ID: <19021734.1239291170814613085.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Does anyone have access to this article: "State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001?2003" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-4M6SG8V-4&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f070a553e280dca8be56240176198c30 Apparently, states with a higher level of gun-ownership have a higher homicide rate... Really??? ;-) I'd appreciate a copy of the study, if it's possible. Everyone's just quoting the press release, with no data at all. Thanks! PJ From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Feb 7 02:24:35 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:24:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" In-Reply-To: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> References: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <62c14240702061824p710173bfoc7580b584a4e9e31@mail.gmail.com> Focusing on the consumer entertainment for a moment: Why go to the overpriced movies with the unruly neighbors, and uncomfortable seating when it is so easy to create a home theater stocked with your favorite snacks? I believe the near future will see an increase in stay-at-home consumption of content as bandwidth increases and 'deals' allow us direct access to larger libraries . Eventually we will grow tired of the solitary and unchanging nature of even our 'favorite' linear content. Consider that today's game consoles have the rendering power to animate a movie like Toy Story in real time (1) So why aren't movie producers designing constraints for characters/plots and allowing their scenarios to 'unfold' in response to audience participation? (OK yeah, I know why) If theater seating had inputs which allowed viewers/participants to choose a direction, and the potentials were actualized on-screen according to the majority vote (or some other algorithm) then there would be some unique experience to involvement with Group A vs Group B. I think this novelty will become especially appealing after we have played out all the solitary consumption of linear content that we can find. Also, I can imagine hybrid Virtual/Actual Reality games becoming more popular - like this: http://www.pacmanhattan.com/about.php It's probably not even worth discussing the explosive popularity of massively multi-player/person domains like World of Warcraft, Second Life or what Nintendo's easily approachable Wii might make available to 'non-gamers' - but it might be an interesting discussion to imagine the side effects or currently unseen consequences of even greater penetration of these virtual worlds on our concept of time-space/reality. (1) I thought I read that this was true - if not, it soon will be. On 2/6/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Does anyone have an opinion of what would be the top three "GameChangers"* > coming from 2010 to 2030 in the area of interactive media and entertainment > from a consumer point of view? From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Feb 7 02:54:39 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:54:39 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gun-ownership to homicide rate study query In-Reply-To: <19021734.1239291170814613085.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <19021734.1239291170814613085.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: pjmanney wrote: > Does anyone have access to this article: > > "State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to > survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001?2003" > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF- > 4M6SG8V- > 4&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_so > rt=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md > 5=f070a553e280dca8be56240176198c30 I'm going to be at UCSB tonight for a talk on Oppenheimer. I'll see if I can slurp this item onto a memory card while I'm within their hallowed halls. - Jef From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Feb 7 03:16:00 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:16:00 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" References: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> <62c14240702061824p710173bfoc7580b584a4e9e31@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <088001c74a66$4b5e2850$640fa8c0@kevin> > Focusing on the consumer entertainment for a moment: > > Why go to the overpriced movies with the unruly neighbors, and > uncomfortable seating when it is so easy to create a home theater > stocked with your favorite snacks? I believe the near future will see > an increase in stay-at-home consumption of content as bandwidth > increases and 'deals' allow us direct access to larger libraries . I'm in the early stages of building a business that specializes in building custom home theaters just for the reasons you mention. > Eventually we will grow tired of the solitary and unchanging nature of > even our 'favorite' linear content. I disagree here. the "Choose your own adventure" stories never took over the literary world and I doubt that they will take over film either. Movies are a cultural thing. There's a certain bond there when I say to a total stranger "If she weighs as much as a duck...." and they finish with "she's a witch!", or when someone says to me "Surely you can't be serious" and I reply "I am serious....and don't call me Shirley." Linear stories present an opportunity for people to share fictitious experiences. Telling my daughter to remember what happened to the boy who cried wolf only allows me to pass down the message if the ending of the story were the same for me as it is for her. > Consider that today's game consoles have the rendering power to > animate a movie like Toy Story in real time (1) So why aren't movie > producers designing constraints for characters/plots and allowing > their scenarios to 'unfold' in response to audience participation? > (OK yeah, I know why) If theater seating had inputs which allowed > viewers/participants to choose a direction, and the potentials were > actualized on-screen according to the majority vote (or some other > algorithm) then there would be some unique experience to involvement > with Group A vs Group B. I think this novelty will become especially > appealing after we have played out all the solitary consumption of > linear content that we can find. I expect that we will soon see this in theme parks or specialized theaters similar IMAX but I don't expect it to replace the traditional linear film. Interesting new inventions will come around and add to it making it a greater experience, but we live linear lives and linear stories are easiest for us to relate to. > > Also, I can imagine hybrid Virtual/Actual Reality games becoming more > popular - like this: http://www.pacmanhattan.com/about.php > > It's probably not even worth discussing the explosive popularity of > massively multi-player/person domains like World of Warcraft, Second > Life or what Nintendo's easily approachable Wii might make available > to 'non-gamers' - but it might be an interesting discussion to imagine > the side effects or currently unseen consequences of even greater > penetration of these virtual worlds on our concept of > time-space/reality. > > (1) I thought I read that this was true - if not, it soon will be. > > On 2/6/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Does anyone have an opinion of what would be the top three "GameChangers"* > > coming from 2010 to 2030 in the area of interactive media and entertainment > > from a consumer point of view? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Feb 7 03:21:05 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:21:05 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" References: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <089901c74a67$01837db0$640fa8c0@kevin> Any development that can fool the body into "feeling" motion. Replacing the worn out old TV screen with goggles or a helmet that allows full 360 movement on a rounded screen. Adding smell to the entire package. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:43 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" Does anyone have an opinion of what would be the top three "GameChangers"* coming from 2010 to 2030 in the area of interactive media and entertainment from a consumer point of view? *GameChanger: Its "mission is to deliver new business opportunities - specifically, breakthrough or "game-changing" opportunities. ... GameChanger trades in a market for ideas, rewarding innovators with a variety of remuneration schemes, should their idea become a basis for a commercial venture. However, the GameChanger experience also strongly suggests that people compete for a chance to have their personal vision impact the corporate future." Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Feb 7 03:55:58 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:25:58 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Where's the wow? In-Reply-To: <380-2200722621349718@M2W034.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200722621349718@M2W034.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0702061955q308f11efwd4c391f9fc1dbf33@mail.gmail.com> I think they might have considered "Ah crap" as their slogan, but decided against it... Emlyn On 07/02/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > From: Jef Allbright > > >http://www.davinciinstitute.com/new/admin/content/FCKeditor/uploads/wown > ow.jpg > > LOL!! > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web LIVE ? Free email based on Microsoft(r) Exchange technology - > http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Feb 7 04:36:05 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:36:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP Message-ID: Nice to see you back, Keith. I've never written so much email in my life! I can stop worrying about you, I'm glad you're safe. The next step for you is finding a good criminal lawyer, and trying to gain the help of the ACLU and/or EFF, I think. (Mine and everyone else's suggestions) Ciao for now Amara (off to Holland) -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 7 08:20:48 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:20:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" In-Reply-To: <089901c74a67$01837db0$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> <089901c74a67$01837db0$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <20070207082048.GE21677@leitl.org> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:21:05PM -0600, kevinfreels.com wrote: > Any development that can fool the body into "feeling" motion. That one is going to be difficult. Electrostimulation of the vestibular, possibly, but that require precise electrode placement. > Replacing the worn out old TV screen with goggles or a helmet that allows > full 360 movement on a rounded screen. It's remarkable that there are now MEMS accelerometers about anywhere, and geomagnetics sensors, and even bloody photo camers which segment out faces in realtime, but no single HMD worth spit. There are no fully immersive lightweight HMDs for optical reasons, but I guess a triple-screen worth of 30" in front of you could be reasonably useful. > Adding smell to the entire package. Not that I'm anosmic, but fail to see the utility. Bandwidth's way too low. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Feb 7 08:57:09 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 02:57:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" References: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com><089901c74a67$01837db0$640fa8c0@kevin> <20070207082048.GE21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <001a01c74a95$f3b50da0$640fa8c0@kevin> > Any development that can fool the body into "feeling" motion. That one is going to be difficult. Electrostimulation of the vestibular, possibly, but that require precise electrode placement. Of course it will be difficult. But we are projecting for 2010-2030 :-) > Replacing the worn out old TV screen with goggles or a helmet that allows > full 360 movement on a rounded screen. It's remarkable that there are now MEMS accelerometers about anywhere, and geomagnetics sensors, and even bloody photo camers which segment out faces in realtime, but no single HMD worth spit. There are no fully immersive lightweight HMDs for optical reasons, but I guess a triple-screen worth of 30" in front of you could be reasonably useful. It's amazing isn't it? Just like there's been cell phones and cheap memory for some time but you still can't get a phone with a 1 or 1 GB mp3 player. > Adding smell to the entire package. Not that I'm anosmic, but fail to see the utility. Bandwidth's way too low. Because it's weird and neat. No more utility than a game should have. After all, you are playing for the fun of it. I'm not sure how it would be done - likely through some kind of replaceable scent paper but then again, that's me back in 2007 guessing about 2030. Much of what I say now will sound silly then. -- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugen Leitl" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 7 20:47:27 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:47:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070204134137.0224f910@satx.rr.com> References: <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> <20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> <35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org> <003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> <1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org> <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com> <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207154545.03a8e2b8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:44 PM 2/4/2007 -0600, you wrote: >At 08:32 PM 2/4/2007 +0100, Serafino wrote: > > >the Italian National Agency for the New Technologies, > >Energy and the Environmental (ENEA) > >http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/index-eng.htm > >has a (slow) page about cold fusion > >(last update: 2003) > >Yeah, latest news page update seems to be 2003. And yet they haven't >repudiated their earlier reports. Understandable. They may not be working on it in the lab any more, but are back in the office trying to figure out some non magical theory for why this happens. I don't envy them. Keith >Is this a govt supported lab? > >Damien Broderick > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 7 20:53:59 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:53:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207154935.03be6470@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:47 PM 2/4/2007 +0000, Robert Bradbury wrote: >On 2/4/07, Amara Graps <amara at amara.com> wrote: >>Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com >> >Is this a govt supported lab? >> >>Yes. (ENEA-Frascati is five minutes away, do you want a picture ? :-) ) > >Amara, at some point, if our ever so distant future paths should cross >again, please do not hesitate to remind me to find that "instance" at >which I loved you. > >I make no claims as to how long such "instances" could or should last. I >am however willing to acknowledge their existence and express such. > >In my list of people I most admire, you are right up there at the top. My sentiments exactly. Amara is one of the few people who I remember from the first time I met her. Next time she is in the states, I am going to ask for a cell sample so (post singularity) I can raise one as a daughter. :-) Keith From scerir at libero.it Wed Feb 7 21:51:08 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:51:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede><001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer><1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org><001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com><001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> <5.1.0.14.0.20070207154545.03a8e2b8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <001101c74b02$13b40090$a2971f97@archimede> > > >http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/index-eng.htm > >Yeah, latest news page update seems to be 2003. > >And yet they haven't repudiated their earlier > >reports. > Understandable. They may not be working on it > in the lab any more, but are back in the office > trying to figure out some non magical theory > for why this happens. No, they had the theory, the QED by G.Preparata, a bit different from what Julian Schwinger wrote about the role of the lattice in cold fusion http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html The Italian page says ... http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/ "Per l'anno 2003 non sono stati assegnati finanziamenti ulteriori per cui non sono previsti ulteriori sviluppi." Due to lack of money ... any reasearch on cold fusion came to an end (in 2002). This means that they achieved (reproducible) results both in the production of 4He and heat, but the excess heat (or power) wasn't considerable at all! s. As you can probably see (my pc refuses to play it) that now they are trying another idea ... http://www.pd.infn.it/~dorigo/celticstone.avi From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 7 21:51:50 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:51:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: <200702070207.l1727btP008209@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207163252.03bdac78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:55 PM 2/6/2007 -0800, spike wrote: snip >Keith right now we would be interested in anything you had to say, even if >it is nothing more than "howdy friends, I am alive." > >We have been on edge worrying about you for the last several days pal. I am out, not in need of more money at the moment, but keep the checkbooks and paypal accounts handy. I am considering a suit against the IRS to cost the cult its unique and illegal tax status. Judge Silverman, a federal judge in Phoenix invited the suit back in 2002. "If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology -- allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to everybody else -- then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put a stop to *that* policy. The remedy is not to require the IRS to let others claim the improper deduction, too." http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/27B565D1754D4E5E88256B50005F20CE/$file/0070753.pdf?openelement I tried this in 1998 but times have changed and this suit is *invited.* This special deal (obtained I believe by blackmail) is the only real accomplishment of the current leader. It transferred upwards of two billion dollars from the US taxpayers to the cult. The only way anyone will be safe to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize this example of organized crime (the FBI's classification) is when the organization is defunct. Recent estimates are that the cult has shrank by about 50% since they started duking it out with the net. Tom Cruise gets credit for a good part of that. Inadvertently of course. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 7 22:07:11 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:07:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotional memes, was Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207154545.03a8e2b8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070204134137.0224f910@satx.rr.com> <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> <001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer> <20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com> <20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org> <35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org> <003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer> <1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org> <001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com> <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207170059.039a4198@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Transplanted from the memetics list May 2006 where it generated no comment. In correspondence with Eugene V Kooin, the author of the comment here: >http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/4/comment/1005 > > My main point, however, is a tribute to meme selection: the fittest will > survive! He commented: snip >. . . it is hard for me to understand how many people, including >biologists, can have such a negative attitude (sometimes, almost >violently expressed) to this entire conceptual development. I suppose >this in itself is a peculiar phenomenon to be understood from the point >of view of evolutionary psychology . . . Let's try. Examples first. I remember with near horror a time when a very senior scientist (not in geology) went off on a disjointed emotional rant that was scary to behold. (He was shaking with rage.) I was reading *his* copy of _Scientific American_ at his house and made some innocent comment about an article on plate tectonics. A story illustrating this effect to a T was posted here by Aaron Lynch back in 2004 and expanded on the Extropian mailing list. (That was where the Libertarians freaked out for over a decade about the whole meme concept seemingly because of an article I wrote for _Reason_.) The K/T extinction event meme is another one that inspired high emotion against it for over a decade. Even 25 years after the 200-mile wide crater was found there are "partisans" who still reject the meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater Drew Westen imaged the effects in brains for political "partisans" but I would bet long odds that the same brain regions were/are active in challenged K/T rejecters. Usually the memes that get tied up with so much emotion are religious or political. Whatever the source, it is clear that a wide variety of memes can obtain this kind of binding to emotional areas of the brain. Are there features of plate tectonics, the "memes about memes" and the K/T event that group them with political or religious memes? What other memes classes have this binding? In some cases, and memetics is one of them, the reaction is almost allergic. People often don't have an expressible meme in competition to the challenge meme; they just emotionally and sometimes violently reject the meme. [Example, recent postings here with high emotional content.] (That does not mean they don't have a meme or set of memes in competition, just that they can't express them.) This business of emotional freak-outs over memes is so widespread among humans that it must be a species typical psychological trait--though people vary in how much they have it. Evolutionary psychology makes the claim that--without exception--every human psychological trait either evolved (example capture-bonding) or is a side effect (drug addiction) of some trait that *did* contribute to reproductive success back in the EEA (Stone Age.) I have been baffled over this for two decades, I still am, but perhaps the above framing of the problem might give someone an idea about how to solve it. The "rules" of the EP game is that you need to show how the "feature" would have directly improved reproductive success in the EEA for those who had it, *or* how the psychological trait is a side effect of some trait that did improve reproductive success. (Extra points if you can suggest ways to test it.) Dawkins makes the case that being gullible may be a feature of children. You can see why believing adults would contribute to reproductive success (those eaten by bears didn't leave descendents). The possibility exists that some memes get trapped in the partial freezing of the brain's ability to learn language that happens around puberty. (That might have something to do with the 13 year-old boys who read Rand.) Or perhaps there is a later freezing in of memes. In that case, we should be able to detect an age cutoff in those who opposed plate tectonics or the K/T extinction. Perhaps it is some side effect of the drive for status to have strong emotional attachments to memes? (None of these feel right in EP terms.) (Added the next day) Or perhaps these emotional bindings to scientific memes (plus religious and political memes) are a side effect of emotional bindings to xenophobic memes. I recently made the case that the trait to pass around xenophobic memes and go non-rational is an evolved species typical behavior of humans facing bad times. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 It may be active in some people at some level even under low stress conditions. Low level activation of the psychological traits behind capture-bonding (Stockholm Syndrome) seems to account for the rewards people get from BDSM sex practices. Wars and captures were *major* selection factors in the EEA. It should not be a surprise if many of our deepest psychological traits were shaped by such selection. Comments? Keith Henson PS. The theory leads to the prediction that *this* theory will be met with violent rejection by some. :-) From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Feb 7 22:26:31 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:26:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207163252.03bdac78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070131125556.03b03e70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070207163252.03bdac78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: All should be aware that discussions on this list are publicly available and indexed by Google. From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 7 22:18:49 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:18:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:08 PM 2/3/2007 -0500, you wrote: >Yes, but in the case of CF, many of the replicators have been >respected scientists at decent universities... not just crackpots in >science fair experiments... Right Ben, places like Stanford and the U of Hawaii are some I remember. >I don't really care about theoretical questions about hypothetical >situations, I'm more interesting in talking about the details of this >particular case, which you are not informed about... The problem with CF or whatever it is, is that (as far as I know) nobody has a theory about why this should occur. Responding to a certain person's posts are a waste of time compared to even the wildest speculations you can think of to account for the observations and suggestions on ways to test them. I have a few ideas. Is there any central place where researchers fish for ideas? Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 7 22:53:10 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:53:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207175302.03b73210@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:38 PM 2/5/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: snip >The editors at Nature and Science may be intelligent, but have not >paid much >attention to this issue due to their egos and particular attitudes. I can provide a second example. For reasons that have been analyzed here, the Reason magazine editors took an adverse view of memetics which has (to the best of my knowledge) persisted for over two decades. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Feb 7 23:05:45 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:05:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Emotional memes, was Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207170059.039a4198@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070204134137.0224f910@satx.rr.com><001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede><001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer><1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org><001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com><001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> <5.1.0.14.0.20070207170059.039a4198@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith wrote: > Transplanted from the memetics list May 2006 where it generated no > comment. > > In correspondence with Eugene V Kooin, the author of the comment > here: > > >http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/4/comment/1005 > > > > My main point, however, is a tribute to meme selection: the > fittest will > > survive! > > He commented: > > snip > >> . . . it is hard for me to understand how many people, including >> biologists, can have such a negative attitude (sometimes, almost >> violently expressed) to this entire conceptual development. I >> suppose this in itself is a peculiar phenomenon to be understood >> from the point of view of evolutionary psychology . . . > > Let's try. Examples first. > > I remember with near horror a time when a very senior scientist > (not in geology) went off on a disjointed emotional rant that was > scary to behold. (He was shaking with rage.) I was reading *his* > copy of _Scientific American_ at his house and made some innocent > comment about an article on plate tectonics. > > A story illustrating this effect to a T was posted here by Aaron > Lynch back in 2004 and expanded on the Extropian mailing list. > (That was where the Libertarians freaked out for over a decade > about the whole meme concept seemingly because of an article I > wrote for _Reason_.) > > The K/T extinction event meme is another one that inspired high > emotion against it for over a decade. Even 25 years after the > 200-mile wide crater was found there are "partisans" who still > reject the meme. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater > Drew Westen imaged the effects in brains for political "partisans" > but I would bet long odds that the same brain regions were/are > active in challenged K/T rejecters. > > Usually the memes that get tied up with so much emotion are > religious or political. Whatever the source, it is clear that a > wide variety of memes can obtain this kind of binding to emotional > areas of the brain. Are there features of plate tectonics, the > "memes about memes" and the K/T event that group them with > political or religious memes? What other memes classes have > this binding? Keith, I think you're referring to binding with sense of self-worth. Similar to social status but in this case one fears damage to one's own worth, and all that entails in terms of survival behavior. Many people feel that if their beliefs are attacked, then they are attacked. A few oddballs actually like to have their beliefs attacked, because they expect they might gain a better set of beliefs in the process. Others just enjoy the resulting competition. Most people rarely or never take a third person view of themselves and react with little no awareness of their motivations. If pressed for an explanation, they confabulate in such a way that they defend their self from (threat of) change. Although we have a greater than normal proportion of novel thinkers on this list, there's plenty of evidence here of people defending beliefs as if they were defending themselves. I suppose the evolutionary drivers for having and defending a sense of self-worth are already well known. - Jef From ben at goertzel.org Wed Feb 7 23:25:29 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:25:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <001101c74b02$13b40090$a2971f97@archimede> References: <001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede><001801c74688$3f21e130$ed044e0c@MyComputer><20070202143527.GV21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070202175236.023a3008@satx.rr.com><20070203104859.GJ21677@leitl.org><35950269-582C-4D64-B579-644D9B2250E8@goertzel.org><003401c747bd$8f8a1210$d3064e0c@MyComputer><1A8C4CF2-8815-4CE8-B3E8-324CFD5BBA5B@goertzel.org><001901c7487d$fac14330$35074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070204115133.021e83b0@satx.rr.com><001401c74893$27d5bda0$98921f97@archimede> <5.1.0.14.0.20070207154545.03a8e2b8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001101c74b02$13b40090$a2971f97@archimede> Message-ID: > > No, they had the theory, the QED by G.Preparata, > a bit different from what Julian Schwinger > wrote about the role of the lattice in cold fusion > http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html Interesting! As revealed there, Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger resigned from the American Physical Society due to their unethical and unscientific treatment of cold fusion research... -- Ben From ben at goertzel.org Wed Feb 7 23:30:37 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:30:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <39E0FB11-360B-41EA-82A1-B4279D5976EB@goertzel.org> > I think there are many theories, but not enough experiments to validate or refute them. Nobelist Julian Schwinger posed one sketch of a theory in this lecture http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html but I'm sure there are more recent ideas... Ben > The problem with CF or whatever it is, is that (as far as I know) > nobody > has a theory about why this should occur. Responding to a certain > person's > posts are a waste of time compared to even the wildest speculations > you can > think of to account for the observations and suggestions on ways to > test them. > > I have a few ideas. Is there any central place where researchers > fish for > ideas? > > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Feb 7 23:44:43 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:44:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <39E0FB11-360B-41EA-82A1-B4279D5976EB@goertzel.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <39E0FB11-360B-41EA-82A1-B4279D5976EB@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207174220.0225dde8@satx.rr.com> At 06:30 PM 2/7/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: >I think there are many theories, but not enough experiments to >validate or refute them. > >Nobelist Julian Schwinger posed one sketch of a theory in this lecture > >http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html Here's a telling quote: < Critics should learn to operate within the bounds of sanity. My first attempt at publication, for the record, was a total disaster. "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" was written to suggest several critical experiments, which is the function of hypothesis. The masked reviewers, to a person, ignored that, and complained that I had not proved the underlying assumptions. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost? The paper was submitted, in August 1989, to Physical Review Letters. I anticipated that PRL would have some difficulty with what had become a very controversial subject, but I felt an obligation to give them the first chance. What I had not expected?as I wrote in my subsequent letter of resignation from the American Physical Society?was contempt.> Everyone should bear in mind that Schwinger is right up there with Feynman. It's not too hard to suspect that something *sociological* is at work here. Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 7 23:45:21 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:45:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Keith Henson [Taken into Custody] (3) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207184512.03b76a20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:16 PM 2/3/2007 -0600, you wrote: >Please disregard this email. I totally missed this. I was thinking about >something else and didn't realize that this was THE Keith Henson. LOL! I am not sure the world would put up with more than one of me. >Bad duh >moment. That goes to show you what happens when you have children. lol Five girls myself. Best wishes, Keith Henson PS. Even a summery of this nonsense is of ridiculous length. The Wikipedia page might be a place to start. snip From ben at goertzel.org Thu Feb 8 00:19:41 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:19:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207174220.0225dde8@satx.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <39E0FB11-360B-41EA-82A1-B4279D5976EB@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070207174220.0225dde8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9511B693-C61B-4F78-997F-64E330788CDB@goertzel.org> From the wikipedia page on Schwinger: " After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the research of low- energy nuclear fusion reactions (AKA cold fusion). He wrote eight theory papers about it, including these [1] [2]. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers. He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors? rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science." " Unfortunately, the guy died in 1994. If not for the goddamn ongoing blight of involuntary death, we would probably have a theory of cold fusion by now, and maybe Schwinger would have a second Nobel Prize for it ;-) -- Ben On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:30 PM 2/7/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: > >> I think there are many theories, but not enough experiments to >> validate or refute them. >> >> Nobelist Julian Schwinger posed one sketch of a theory in this >> lecture >> >> http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html > > Here's a telling quote: > > < Critics should learn to operate within the bounds of sanity. > > My first attempt at publication, for the record, > was a total disaster. "Cold Fusion: A Hypothesis" > was written to suggest several critical > experiments, which is the function of hypothesis. > The masked reviewers, to a person, ignored that, > and complained that I had not proved the > underlying assumptions. Has the knowledge that > physics is an experimental science been totally lost? > > The paper was submitted, in August 1989, to > Physical Review Letters. I anticipated that PRL > would have some difficulty with what had become a > very controversial subject, but I felt an > obligation to give them the first chance. What I > had not expected?as I wrote in my subsequent > letter of resignation from the American Physical Society?was > contempt.> > > Everyone should bear in mind that Schwinger is > right up there with Feynman. It's not too hard to > suspect that something *sociological* is at work here. > > Damien Broderick > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu Feb 8 01:02:43 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:02:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Keith Henson [Taken into Custody] (3) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207184512.03b76a20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <004f01c74b1c$fc8c2940$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello Keith! So good to have you here among us. You sound like you are really holding up quite well. We have all been thinking of you and will continue to support you through all time. : ) Gina "Nanogirl" Miller http://nanogirl.com/keith/keithbig.gif ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Henson To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:45 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] The Keith Henson [Taken into Custody] (3) At 01:16 PM 2/3/2007 -0600, you wrote: >Please disregard this email. I totally missed this. I was thinking about >something else and didn't realize that this was THE Keith Henson. LOL! I am not sure the world would put up with more than one of me. >Bad duh >moment. That goes to show you what happens when you have children. lol Five girls myself. Best wishes, Keith Henson PS. Even a summery of this nonsense is of ridiculous length. The Wikipedia page might be a place to start. snip _______________________________________________ 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Feb 8 02:34:45 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:34:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] iDarwin Award winners Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207203412.022fa1f8@satx.rr.com> NEW YORK (Reuters) - New Yorkers who blithely cross the street listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine. New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail. From moses2k at gmail.com Thu Feb 8 04:25:35 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:25:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" In-Reply-To: <001a01c74a95$f3b50da0$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> <089901c74a67$01837db0$640fa8c0@kevin> <20070207082048.GE21677@leitl.org> <001a01c74a95$f3b50da0$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <3aff9e290702072025h2726c733rb7440238bde9d98@mail.gmail.com> Regarding the Toy Story claim, yes, real-time ray-tracing has become more plausible; it also scales fairly well in relation to scene complexity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_%28computer_graphics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytracing Re: 'interactive movies', they're called 'adventure games' (Zork, Myst, Monkey Island, etc.). They are the computer game of choice for choosy computer gamers. Lumus & Mirage Innovations have 'next-gen' HMD projects supposedly nearing production. http://www.lumusvision.com/ http://www.mirageinnovations.com/ Olfactory stimulation, while low-bandwidth, can, of course, be strongly evocative. kevin, some current PDA/smartphones have mixed cell/wifi/bluetooth capabilities as well as media & web browsing. For instance: http://www.gizmos2go.com/xcart/product.php?productid=5413&cat=737&page=1 Cell service prices are still exorbitant though. :) I haven't heard much about novel input projects on the horizon, though consumer-priced mo-cap gloves seem to me the most plausible near-term item. I think, however, the greatest area for improvement is in AI, both for higher-level, more abstract, intelligent software design, and for more impressive game-character interactivity. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Feb 8 04:39:23 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:39:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] astro lass goes orbital In-Reply-To: <380-2200722621349718@M2W034.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <200702080449.l184nqA0007616@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I have a notion that might explain the bizarre behavior of the young woman who managed to make NASAs elite astronaut corps, earn a master's degree and make the rank of captain in the US Navy. Brain tumor? spike From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Feb 8 04:57:46 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:57:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" In-Reply-To: <088001c74a66$4b5e2850$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> <62c14240702061824p710173bfoc7580b584a4e9e31@mail.gmail.com> <088001c74a66$4b5e2850$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <62c14240702072057g17be6025j5e7da0ed68ed2b7d@mail.gmail.com> On 2/6/07, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I disagree here. the "Choose your own adventure" stories never took over the > literary world and I doubt that they will take over film either. Movies are > a cultural thing. There's a certain bond there when I say to a total > stranger "If she weighs as much as a duck...." and they finish with "she's a > witch!", or when someone says to me "Surely you can't be serious" and I > reply "I am serious....and don't call me Shirley." > Linear stories present an opportunity for people to share fictitious > experiences. Telling my daughter to remember what happened to the boy who > cried wolf only allows me to pass down the message if the ending of the > story were the same for me as it is for her. Agreed. Ever been to a Rocky Horror Picture Show? 'more than once? I'm not saying that can or should replace linear media, but i think something like it could become more popular. (of course, any amount of supposition is doomed to be laughably wrong, so I use the example of the choose-your-adventure as an icon to represent a group media experience) > I expect that we will soon see this in theme parks or specialized theaters > similar IMAX but I don't expect it to replace the traditional linear film. > Interesting new inventions will come around and add to it making it a > greater experience, but we live linear lives and linear stories are easiest > for us to relate to. How many applications are in your taskbar right now? Are you also listening to an iPod or radio, is the TV on in the room you are in? We are evolving into less linear and single-tasking lives all the time. I agree with your point about needing commonality in order to relate - however I think in the future we may directly realize classes of memes regardless of what characters are used to deliver them. "Oh, it's that type of story" will have us looking for a new stream long before we get to the happily ever after ending. (Does anyone still wait for websites' Flash Intro to even download, let alone play all the way through?) From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Feb 8 05:12:03 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:12:03 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] astro lass goes orbital In-Reply-To: <200702080449.l184nqA0007616@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <380-2200722621349718@M2W034.mail2web.com> <200702080449.l184nqA0007616@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207231108.0237f000@satx.rr.com> At 08:39 PM 2/7/2007 -0800, spike wrote: >Brain tumor? Cosmic ray induced, you mean? (I've been surprised there isn't more of it... or is there?) Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Feb 8 05:49:51 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:49:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] astro lass goes orbital In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207231108.0237f000@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200702080602.l18621ag012461@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] astro lass goes orbital > > At 08:39 PM 2/7/2007 -0800, spike wrote: > > >Brain tumor? > > Cosmic ray induced, you mean? (I've been surprised there isn't more > of it... or is there?) > > Damien Broderick Ja. The risk is apparently increased, altho the sample size of all astronuats is still too small to make conclusions. I would rather think her bizarre wackiness is caused by a tumor than to worry that any one of us could flip out at any time over that endorphin surge we call love. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Feb 8 06:11:05 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:11:05 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] astro lass goes orbital In-Reply-To: <200702080602.l18621ag012461@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207231108.0237f000@satx.rr.com> <200702080602.l18621ag012461@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070208001016.022da600@satx.rr.com> At 09:49 PM 2/7/2007 -0800, spike wrote: >I would rather think her bizarre wackiness is caused by a tumor than to >worry that any one of us could flip out at any time over that endorphin >surge we call love. Ha! Typical *NT*! From scerir at libero.it Thu Feb 8 07:20:23 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:20:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><39E0FB11-360B-41EA-82A1-B4279D5976EB@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070207174220.0225dde8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003001c74b51$99b9bff0$01b81f97@archimede> Damien Broderick: Everyone should bear in mind that Schwinger is right up there with Feynman. It's not too hard to suspect that something *sociological* is at work here. # Read also the last two pages of this paper http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0303078 written by Mario Rabinowitz, who also coauthored a famous paper, a bit critical on the possibility of cold fusion, published in Int.J.Theor.Phys. (1994) http://www.arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0303057 . From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Feb 8 10:48:50 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:48:50 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] astro lass goes orbital In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070208001016.022da600@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207231108.0237f000@satx.rr.com> <200702080602.l18621ag012461@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070208001016.022da600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1576.163.1.72.81.1170931730.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:49 PM 2/7/2007 -0800, spike wrote: > >>I would rather think her bizarre wackiness is caused by a tumor than to >>worry that any one of us could flip out at any time over that endorphin >>surge we call love. > > Ha! Typical *NT*! I must admit that my first reaction too was to think of brain tumors. *NT* as charged. The whole affair is so interesting because it clashes with Nasa's "No sex please" policy: the official story is that there has never been any sex on any space mission ever. Astronauts are heroes, space is a place for manifest destiny or pure science. As soon as people join a mission they leave out all human baggage and become pure Right Stuff. Perhaps rational given that they are tax funded and doesn't dare to irritate their puritan constituents, but rather hard to maintain now. In a few years some minor celebrity will be boasting in all media that they were first with sex in space on a Virgin Galactic flight. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Feb 8 14:12:49 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:12:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] astro lass goes orbital In-Reply-To: <200702080449.l184nqA0007616@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <380-2200722621349718@M2W034.mail2web.com> <200702080449.l184nqA0007616@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <40818.72.236.103.13.1170943969.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > > I have a notion that might explain the bizarre behavior of the young woman > who managed to make NASAs elite astronaut corps, earn a master's degree and > make the rank of captain in the US Navy. Brain tumor? > That was my thought, as we had someone in our area who went bonkers all of a sudden and that's exactly what it was! Regards, MB From jonkc at att.net Thu Feb 8 18:43:35 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:43:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <010801c74bb1$15868320$2f054e0c@MyComputer> "Keith Henson" > The problem with CF or whatever it is, is that (as far as I know) nobody > has a theory about why this should occur. No, that is not the problem. High Temperature Superconductors were discovered about the same time cold fusion was "discovered". At the time there was not a theory to explain either phenomenon and the same is true today, but today you could not find a scientist who thinks High Temperature Superconductors do not exist. > places like Stanford and the U of Hawaii are some I remember. And it what rag were those remarkable results published it? Or was it just a website? > I remember with near horror a time when a very senior scientist (not in > geology) went off on a disjointed emotional rant that was scary to > behold. (He was shaking with rage.) I was reading *his* copy of >_Scientific American_ at his house and made some innocent comment > about an article on plate tectonics. Clark's "BULLSHIT" doesn't compare You are quire correct, it does not compare. Plate tectonics was a theory and until the mid 60's the evidence for it really wasn't very good. Nevertheless it would have been inappropriate to go into a rant about it before that time because a theory is enormously more difficult to disprove than a experimental result. If they had said I believe someday a way will be found to fuse hydrogen at room temperature they might be wrong but they wouldn't be talking bullshit; but whenever someone on this list confidently says people have been routinely doing it for 17 years I'm going to label that remark for what it is, BULLSHIT. I'm going to repeat something I've said twice before, a simple very well publicized experiment that has been imposable to be confirmed for 17 years would be UNIQUE in the history of science. Keith let's make a friendly little wager, if a pro cold fusion article (not counting Muon-catalyzed cold fusion) appears in Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters in the next year I will send you one dollar, if it doesn't appear you will send me one dollar. I would rate the possibility of seeing pro cold fusion about as likely as seeing a pro Scientology article. Why? Because they are both BULLSHIT! John K Clark From extropy at unreasonable.com Thu Feb 8 20:19:48 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:19:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Richard Feynman Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20070208150424.0911c7a0@unreasonable.com> The February issue of Physics Today is out, with a memoir of Feynman from a close friend (Theodore Welton), mostly of their days as MIT students and working together at Los Alamos. Also, an essay on supercooled glass, many letters about the teaching of evolution, a news story on microwave-invisible materials, and articles on Casimir forces and the elasticity of thin plates. http://www.physicstoday.org/ or your local library. -- David Lubkin. From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 8 21:20:37 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:20:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <010801c74bb1$15868320$2f054e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:43 PM 2/8/2007 -0500, John wrote: >"Keith Henson" > > > The problem with CF or whatever it is, is that (as far as I know) nobody > > has a theory about why this should occur. > >No, that is not the problem. High Temperature Superconductors were >discovered about the same time cold fusion was "discovered". At the time >there was not a theory to explain either phenomenon There might not be a really detailed theory, but superconducting was fairly well understood. (BCS model as I remember.) >and the same is true >today, but today you could not find a scientist who thinks High Temperature >Superconductors do not exist. It's quick and easy to replicate HTS. Heck, you can do it in a few hours. If HTS had taken hundreds of hours to anneal and still been intermittent I doubt it would have faired any better. > > places like Stanford and the U of Hawaii are some I remember. > >And it what rag were those remarkable results published it? Or was it just a >website? That long ago? What I saw were research preprints that went into details and bitched about how hard it was to get repeatable results, but when they got a cell that decided to turn on, there was no question about it. > > I remember with near horror a time when a very senior scientist (not in > > geology) went off on a disjointed emotional rant that was scary to > > behold. (He was shaking with rage.) I was reading *his* copy of > >_Scientific American_ at his house and made some innocent comment > > about an article on plate tectonics. Clark's "BULLSHIT" doesn't compare > >You are quire correct, it does not compare. You missed the point. I was comparing *emotional* levels between you and this senior scientist. But then maybe you are shaking with rage and ranting while you write your posts. If so, you do compare and I apologize for belittling your intensity. >Plate tectonics was a theory and >until the mid 60's the evidence for it really wasn't very good. This was at mid to late 70s. It's been 30 years now. Still, it would not surprise me one bit to get the same reaction now. Not that I would try it, one of those experiences was more than enough. >Nevertheless >it would have been inappropriate to go into a rant about it snip >I would rate the possibility of seeing pro cold fusion about as likely as >seeing a pro Scientology article. Why? Because they are both BULLSHIT! You are sadly misinformed. There are thousands of pro scientology articles. Most have been written by scientologists, but a significant number were written by outsiders with poor critical thinking skills who wrote about scientology based on what they were told. Keith Henson From mmbutler at gmail.com Fri Feb 9 00:17:04 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:17:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] iDarwin Award winners In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207203412.022fa1f8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207203412.022fa1f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890702081617m72556058jb7ea34ade7da2c2c@mail.gmail.com> When the Sony Walkman was first introduced, I and several acquaintances started calling them "'Mug Me' Boxes" due to the expected loss of situational awareness. I think Phil Foglio used the term in one panel of a cartoon. Nothing new under the sun. Except the law (sigh). On 2/7/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > NEW YORK (Reuters) - New Yorkers who blithely cross the street > listening to an iPod or talking on a cell phone could soon face a $100 fine. > > New York State Sen. Carl Kruger says three pedestrians in his > Brooklyn district have been killed since September upon stepping into > traffic while distracted by an electronic device. In one case > bystanders screamed "watch out" to no avail. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m 'Piss off, you son of a bitch. Everything above where that plane hit is going to collapse, and it's going to take the whole building with it. I'm getting my people the fuck out of here." -- Rick Rescorla (R.I.P.), cell phone call, 9/11/2001 From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 9 03:33:35 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:33:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <010801c74bb1$15868320$2f054e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <010801c74bb1$15868320$2f054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070208212915.0222efa8@satx.rr.com> At 01:43 PM 2/8/2007 -0500, JKC wrote: >I would rate the possibility of seeing pro cold fusion about as likely as >seeing a pro Scientology article. Why? Because they are both BULLSHIT! Suppose Feynman had published the 8 CF papers, and the opinions, his co-Nobelist Schwinger published. Would that have modified your assessment? Or are you confident Schwinger must have been a senile old BULLSHIT ARTIST precisely because he *did* publish those papers? Damien Broderick From seanl at literati.org Wed Feb 7 01:17:19 2007 From: seanl at literati.org (Sean Lynch) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:17:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gaming: ? re 2010 - 2030 "GameChangers" In-Reply-To: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> References: <380-220072262143420@M2W031.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <45C9289F.3080403@literati.org> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Does anyone have an opinion of what would be the top three "GameChangers"* > coming from 2010 to 2030 in the area of interactive media and entertainment > from a consumer point of view? > > *GameChanger: Its "mission is to deliver new business opportunities ? > specifically, breakthrough or "game-changing" opportunities. ... > GameChanger trades in a market for ideas, rewarding innovators with a > variety of remuneration schemes, should their idea become a basis for a > commercial venture. However, the GameChanger experience also strongly > suggests that people compete for a chance to have their personal vision > impact the corporate future." > This is probably too near-term for what you want, but I think that what's currently called "user-provided content" or "consumer-created content" or whatever is going to change the game much more than it already has. "Games" like Second Life could potentially become far more popular than World of Warcraft when you consider how inefficient the whole setup of Second Life currently is for content creation and how much is created there even with the rough tools currently available; the scripting language for SL was created in a single day! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 250 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 9 02:09:48 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:09:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses Message-ID: <503661.17726.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna Taylor wrote: > Anders Sandberg, Sat Jan 27 15:33:47 UTC 2007 wrote: > >>Smells can rather directly evoke memories and >>emotions. They get directly integrated in a general >>context in the hippocampal system rather than treated >>as elements to be analysed and then put together. >Anna Taylor wrote: > That's odd I always believed that touch and taste > where elements that where analysed and then put > together while, sight, smell and hearing could > directly evoke memories and emotions. > Could you please forward me some links, I'd be very > interested in reading about it. >>Well, I have always heard this as the standard view >>among neuroscientists. At least my memory research >>colleagues (who mess around with related parts of >>the brain) never doubted it, and half of all >>textbooks of memory start with Proust's Madeleine->>cookie quote. My apology Anders. I wasn't very clear with that response. From what I have read, I believed that along side of smell, that sight and hearing could also evoke memories and emotion. Thank you (and Natasha) for the links. I may not have understood properly so I appreciate the right direction. Anna:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Feb 9 07:13:10 2007 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 02:13:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Emotional memes, was Elvis Sightings //cold fusion +// Message-ID: <25741368.1171005191397.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > >On Feb 08, 2007, at 19:02:44, Leonard R. Cleavelin wrote: > >> Is the whole meme thang really advanced enough to call it a >> "theory", in the strict scientific sense? > >I think so. I suspect Dennett might, as well, but, then, the actual >practice of developing methodologies for experimentation never >happened in memetics- it has failed as a science- possibly because >its a theory of how things are, not how they do, and mostly because >the whole endeavor was just swallowed up by socio-biology before it >had a chance to split off. > >The 'meme' as the quanta of culture is a valid term. It follows >darwinian processes, and is a good explanation for why culture is >both inside and outside of us. There is no other, IMHO, good theory >about artifacts and their use in understanding, performing, and >continuing cultures. > >But it's all too general, too oblique, and too wrapped up in human >behavior to truly define. > >I gave it what I consider a good shot, even developing my own model >and usage of 'meme'- but, nothing is really out there except the term >itself. > >Keith Henson, the currently exiled scientology debunker, was one of >the first 'memeticists'. Dawkins came on with an offhand comment >about how culture needs a 'gene', and the gates were open. Dennett >puts a mechanism in the mind for memes. > >There are basically two camps of memeticists- mental and physical. >Some hold that memes are active mental entities and are somehow >'passed' from brain to brain. Others hold that there is nothing >unique about what happens in the brain, and that memes are physical >things created by cultural behaviors. > >My own theory is that memes are the very performances of culture >themselves- constantly in flux, and constantly enforcing their own >continuance. Not either mental or physical, but the very motions in >present time of human behaviors within cultures, as separate from >those innate behaviors we as a species cannot eradicate or escape, >except through genetic change. > >The (imagined) divide between 'cultural' behavior and 'genetic' >behavior is the schism that memes depend upon. > >There is good argument to deny this schism, and thus deny any >separate power to culture at all. > >Difficult fence to straddle, difficult fence to get off. > >I suspect a lot of critics of memetics just said, who cares? > >The only official journal of memetics is defunct, but, see http:// >cfpm.org/jom-emit/overview.html for a brief synopsis of what was. > >- Wade Terry W. Colvin Sierra Vista, Arizona From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Feb 9 11:42:49 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:42:49 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <503661.17726.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <503661.17726.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62391.86.151.138.206.1171021369.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Anna Taylor wrote: > My apology Anders. I wasn't very clear with that > response. From what I have read, I believed that > along side of smell, that sight and hearing could also > evoke memories and emotion. Well, *obviously* all senses can evoke memories and emotion. It would actually be a rather strange sense if a stimuli could not do it. It is just that olfaction is directly connected to the the brain systems that have developed emotional and memory functions. It is not hard to understand the association if you think about how rats experience the world (and our ancestors were after all rat-like creatures). To a rat places are mainly constellations of smells, and this appears to be how places are represented in the hippocampus: conjunctions of smells, and some other sensory information. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jonkc at att.net Fri Feb 9 18:29:50 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:29:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> "Keith Henson" > There might not be a really detailed theory, but superconducting > was fairly well understood. (BCS model as I remember.) Low temperature superconductors are fairly well understood, but one of the few things known about high temperature superconductors is that it must work by a different mechanism. We didn't understand it then we don't understand it now, but unlike cold fusion everybody believes it's real. When Roentgen won the very first Noble Prize in Physics more than a century ago for discovering X rays nobody including Roentgen knew what in hell they were or how they worked (that's why he called them X rays) but every Physicist alive believed they existed because he used then to see the bones in his wife's hand. Where are cold fusion's bones? > It's quick and easy to replicate HTS. You need to mix exotic rare earths in precise percentages in just the right way, with great care taken not to include any impurities, then you have to cool it down to liquid nitrogen temperatures, then you have to measure that it really is superconducting. That doesn't sound enormously easier than a electrolysis experiment. > If HTS had taken hundreds of hours to anneal and > still been intermittent I doubt it would have faired any better. Was it harder than determining that the universe is accelerating? Was if it harder than building a microscope that can see atoms? Was it harder than detecting a neutrino after it went through the entire Earth and then weighing it? Is that stupid heat really that illusive? Well to be honest maybe it is that illusive, because as soon as a real scientist fails to see it the cold fusion people say, oh I forgot to tell you for it to work you also need to do this and that, and when that also doesn't work they say oh I forgot to tell you for it to work you must also do that and this, and when that fails to work.... > This was at mid to late 70s. If he was scoffing at continental drift in the late 70's then the man was a fool. I am not a fool. But again I want to emphasize the enormous difference between having a theory and claiming a experimental result. Disproving one is easy, the other is not. > It's been 30 years now. Still, it would not > surprise me one bit to get the same reaction now. Neither would I, among Scientologists and Christian fundamentalists; but among scientific skeptics they have all either changed their minds about continental drift, died, or gotten Alzheimer's disease by now. > There are thousands of pro scientology articles. Well sure there are, and there are thousands of pro cold fusion articles, but none of them are in Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters, or any journal a real scientist could cite without acute embarrassment. So Keith, will cold fusion become mainstream in the next year or not, I mean, the mainstream can't ALWAYS be wrong, if the phenomena is real they're bound to catch on sooner or later, it's flabbergasting they've managed to avoid it for 17 years. Can this ridiculous state of affairs really continue for another year? I say it can because the phenomenon is not real, so one year from now (or 10 or 100) we will be in exactly precisely the same situation, just like ESP. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Fri Feb 9 18:39:22 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:39:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > > Well sure there are, and there are thousands of pro cold fusion > articles, > but none of them are in Nature or Science or Physical Review > Letters, or any > journal a real scientist could cite without acute embarrassment. > That is BS, there have been CF articles published in respected journals, even though not in any of the absolute most highly rated ones like the once you cite... But, the political issues regarding these top journals rejecting CF papers have been well-discussed already, e.g. by Nobelist Schwinger... I.e., it's not that each individual CF paper has been individually reviewed carefully and found wanting. Rather, at a certain point these journals decided to reject all CF papers as a matter of policy, and then proceeded to follow the policy in spite of the contents of future papers in the domain.... A bad sort of policy, IMO But thanks to the Net we can find things like Schwinger's views online, even if the top journals don't want to publish them... > So Keith, will cold fusion become mainstream in the next year or not, I doubt it. But I bet it will become mainstream in the next 20 years, and quite plausibly the next 5 or 10... > I > mean, the mainstream can't ALWAYS be wrong, I agree, they are usually right. But not always. > if the phenomena is real they're > bound to catch on sooner or later, Agree, but in this case it's taking a surprisingly long time... > it's flabbergasting they've managed to > avoid it for 17 years. I do find it disturbing, but it's not the MOST disturbing aspect of human irrationality I've come across... -- Ben From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 9 19:11:11 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:11:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> At 01:39 PM 2/9/2007 -0500, Ben wrote in reply to John Clark: > > if the phenomena is real they're > > bound to catch on sooner or later, > >Agree, but in this case it's taking a surprisingly long time... It's a rachet. Once the formal decision has been taken to ban papers on a topic, new information gets locked out of the communal flow of discourse *and its very absence then serves as "proof" that there's nothing new to investigate*. As Ben notes, some of the less august journals do open the gates briefly now and then, and this keeps things ticking over a little. This is exactly what's happened with psi research (which John uses as his standard example of indisputable bullshit). From time to time heavy-duty psychology journals publish papers, pro and con, such as those by Cornell University psychology professor Daryl Bem in Psychological Bulletin and Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Journals at that level do not, I observe, publish research papers into Tooth Fairy Electrodynamics. > > it's flabbergasting they've managed to > > avoid it for 17 years. >I do find it disturbing, but it's not the MOST disturbing aspect of >human irrationality I've come across... Here's another instance, also drawn from psi research. Bear in mind that I have considerable regard for Dan Dennett, but I find this anecdote as revealing as John's recent outbursts. A friend, a senior psi researcher, told me: Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 9 19:53:02 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 20:53:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070209195302.GI21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:11:11PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > It's a rachet. Once the formal decision has been taken to ban papers > on a topic, new information gets locked out of the communal flow of > discourse *and its very absence then serves as "proof" that there's If I had kW/cm^3 power densities (reproduced 11 times in the same apparatus, until they got bored with it, and dismantled it, yeah, sure) I wouldn't bother with communal flow of discourse. I would be SELLING IT, and let the rest of them high-falutin' Nature hoitytoities suffer the indignity of publishing papers derived from reverse-engineered MY free-energy devices bought from WalMart. I'm amazed y'all so gullible. Did you read the papers from the site Ben plugged? I've never read more sad crap in my life. The italian ones postulating a nuclear source for a blown up water electrolytic cell takes the cake. It's a children's experiment, for god's sake. Even if one's clueless about energy content of palladium hydride in air, surely one must have heard about knallgas? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 9 19:58:47 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:58:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Emotional memes, was Elvis Sightings //cold fusion +// In-Reply-To: <25741368.1171005191397.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa. earthlink.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070209145732.036b71f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:13 AM 2/9/2007 -0500, you wrote: >-----Forwarded Message----- > > > >On Feb 08, 2007, at 19:02:44, Leonard R. Cleavelin wrote: > > > >> Is the whole meme thang really advanced enough to call it a > >> "theory", in the strict scientific sense? > > > >I think so. I suspect Dennett might, as well, but, then, the actual > >practice of developing methodologies for experimentation never snip Where did this come from? Mailing list? Private email? Keith Henson From scerir at libero.it Fri Feb 9 20:01:21 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 21:01:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] newsvine: "Sure, make me a cyborg" References: <3642969c0701282234p573141d6g59fa8e3dc8619e63@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20070129100644.04c302d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <005301c74c85$127e0ac0$46901f97@archimede> Natasha: > How do you see the distinction > between cyborg and transhuman? There is a test, the most popular random number. Pick your favorite random number ... here http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/02/doesnt_anyone_know_about_onli n.php Results (humans, computers) http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/02/is_17_the_most_random_number. php Results (cyborgs, transhumans) - to be processed - From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 9 20:18:03 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 21:18:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070209201803.GJ21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:11:11PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > [...] Btw, when looking for palladium hydride reactions, I came across our usual suspect source http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/6.3.7.3.htm 6.3.7.3 Exothermal Nuclear Catalysis One solution to low nuclear reaction probability and a poor energy balance is to employ a nuclear catalyst. A number of possibilities have been investigated, as described below. In principle, the two deuterons in a deuterium molecule can spontaneously fuse to form tritium + proton or He3 + neutron, liberating 4 Mev of energy. The two electrons in the D2 molecule act as a catalyst, holding the deuterons together so they can react. According to quantum mechanics, the deuterons can tunnel toward each other through the classically forbidden region of repulsion until they get so close (~2 x 10-15 m) that the strong force dominates and fusion occurs.605 In practice the rate of this reaction is very small, ~10-74 molecule-1 sec-1.609 But if an electron of mass Me is replaced by a heavier negatively charged particle such as a muon (Mmuon ~ 207 Me), forming a muonic molecule, the required tunneling distance shortens by the ratio of the masses -- in this case, from 5 x 10-11 m to 2 x 10-13 m, making penetration of the barrier much more likely and dramatically raising the reaction rate to ~106 molecule-1 sec-1.607 Muon catalysis of the proton-deuteron reaction, initially proposed theoretically by Frank in 1947,606 was first observed experimentally in 1957 by Alvarez.604 It has since been shown to be an effective means of rapidly inducing fusion reactions in low-temperature (<1200 K) mixtures of hydrogen isotopes, with D-T reaction rates of ~109 sec-1.608,610,611 The field has had its own technical journal, Muon Catalyzed Fusion, since 1987, and there are excellent recent review articles.663,664 But muon catalysis has long been considered impractical for large-scale fusion reactors because the muon is relatively short-lived (2 microsec) and is quickly captured by a helium nucleus formed in a fusion reaction.*605 Typically the number of fusions catalyzed by a muon during its lifetime is ~150 in liquid D2/T2, but ~1000 are needed to achieve energy breakeven given the energy cost of artificial muon production.664 More than 70% of the cosmic ray flux at Earth's surface consists of positive and negative muons, but the cosmic-ray induced fusion rate is still impractically low, ~10-26 watts/micron3 in liquid deuterium targets.665 * In 1975 an even heavier negatively-charged lepton was discovered, the tauon. The internuclear tunneling distance for a hypothetical tauonic deuterium molecule (Mtauon ~ 3500 Me) is only ~10-14 m, which should catalyze fusion almost instantaneously. Unfortunately the tauon is shorter-lived than the muon (~10-11 sec), a lifetime much closer to the typical nuclear reaction time range of 10-13 - 10-21 sec. It has also been demonstrated experimentally that various changes in chemical composition, pressure, or electric fields can also act as nuclear catalysts, increasing the rates of nuclear transformations: A. Chemical Composition -- The rate of electron capture for Be7 is 0.08% greater in BeF2 than in metallic Be.390 B. Mechanical Pressure -- The electron capture (EC) decay rates of Tc99 and Ba131 are measurably altered at a pressure of 100,000 atm.612 At 230,000 atm there is a 0.35% increase in the electron density at the nucleus of the free Be atom; the observed increase in the EC decay constant of Be7 oxide with pressure is so linear that it may be used as a method of pressure measurement in diamond anvil experiments in which optical access is impossible.612 It has been suggested that very high pressures could induce fusion.609,933 One experiment in which Pd and Ti immersed in D2O were bombarded with intense ultrasound apparently produced above-background levels of He4, an expected endproduct of D-D fusion processes.1289 C. Fracture Deformations -- Fracto-fusion621 experiments have detected neutron emission when a crystal of lithium deuteride or heavy ice is mechanically fractured, believed to be the consequence of deuteron acceleration by >10 KeV electric fields generated by a propagating crack in the crystal, consistent with D-D fusion.614,620,1009 Heating, cooling, or fracturing metal specimens exposed to high-pressure D2 (e.g., deuterated titanium) frequently produces statistically significant bursts of neutrons and emission of charged particles, rf signals and photons. It is proposed that crack growth results in charge separation on the newly formed crack surfaces, accelerating D+ ions in the electric field across the crack tip to energies >10 KeV sufficient to significantly raise the D-D fusion probability.618 Neutrons are reportedly generated when fragments of titanium are crushed with steel balls in a bath of heavy water.619 It has also been speculated that the core of the spherical acoustic shock wave generated during sonoluminescence, if it remains stable to a 10-nm radius, might reach temperatures appropriate to fusion >~106 K.716,933 D. Electric Fields -- Claytor et al at Los Alamos National Laboratory passed a current of 2.5 amperes at 2000 volts through 200-micron diameter palladium wires in a glow discharge tube of D2 gas at 0.3 atm for ~100 hours apparently producing ~10 nanocuries of tritium, with great care being taken to eliminate possible sources of contamination.613 Deuterium-saturated LiTaO3 crystals in a 75 KV/cm AC field exhibit elevated neutron emission attributed to D-D fusion.2344 Wires of LiD exploded by high current pulses also emit fusion neutrons.622 E. Metallic Deuterides -- Most controversial is the speculative possibility of metallic deuteride catalyzed fusion at temperatures between 300 K?1100 K,615-617,624,740,3438 first reported (then later partially retracted!) in the years 1926-27.666 Positive results are reported for a comprehensive series of experiments conducted at SRI International for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) during 1989-94,676,677 and for another comprehensive series of experiments conducted by the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake during 1989-96,1275 and U.S. patents have been issued for such devices (e.g., Patterson and Cravens, U.S. #5,607,563 on 4 March 1997). In another class of experiments [Edmund Storms, personal communication, 1996], a hydrogenophilic metal such as palladium is loaded with deuterium at effective pressures ~10-100 atm, giving molecular loadings of D/Pd = 85%-95%. Palladium deuteride normally exists either as Pd2D or PdD, but it is believed that the highest loadings1610-1612 may give rise to significant concentrations of PdDx (x = 1-2), asserted to be the "nuclear active phase." Superstoichiometric palladium hydride (x = 1.33) at ~50,000 atm has been observed experimentally in X-ray diffraction studies,667 although preliminary molecular simulation studies of deuterium-entrained metal lattices have given pessimistic results.668 Upon applying a current of ~1 nanoampere/micron2 at ~1-10 volts to a superstoichiometric metallic deuteride, significant heat energy in excess of the electrical input is said to be developed as the deuterium is consumed, on the order of 106-109 watts/m3. He4 is claimed to be produced at the expected rate of ~1011 He4 atoms/sec-watt,1275 with neutrons, tritons (tritium nuclei), g-rays and X-rays missing or detected in amounts far too small to account for the excess energy, which is asserted to be evidence of a catalyzed D-D aneutronic process at work. If the results of these experiments were confirmed, it might become possible to use diamondoid pistons to maintain continuously high deuterium loadings in an active catalytic crystal and thus to develop 1-1000 pW of aneutronic thermal energy in a precisely nanomanufactured porous 1 micron3 metal-deuteride reactor with He4 (23.85 MeV) as the principal (and benign) effluent, achieving storage densities >1016 joules/m3 which would allow a completely self-contained >10 year fuel supply to be carried aboard a 10 pW nanorobot in a ~1 micron3 fuel tank. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Feb 9 22:22:02 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:22:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <20070209195302.GI21677@leitl.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> <20070209195302.GI21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070209161813.0232af78@satx.rr.com> At 08:53 PM 2/9/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: >I'm amazed y'all so gullible. Did you read the papers from the site >Ben plugged? I've never read more sad crap in my life. As one cold fusion-supporting physics Nobelist commented acidly: "What do you expect from a site where submissions are unrefereed?" This is the tiresome downside of Nature and the other Power Suit Wearers refusing to let their referees look through the telescope. Damien Broderick From ben at goertzel.org Fri Feb 9 22:27:35 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:27:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070209161813.0232af78@satx.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> <20070209195302.GI21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209161813.0232af78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <81ECAADA-F624-44C7-A592-4C75AD6654CA@goertzel.org> Precisely. The question is not whether there has been BS posted online about CF. Of course there has been. The question is whether there has been non-BS published about CF. And it seems to me very likely that there has been, also. In fact, you can find a bunch of BS about quantum theory online too. That BS does not invalidate the theory. -- Ben On Feb 9, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:53 PM 2/9/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: > >> I'm amazed y'all so gullible. Did you read the papers from the site >> Ben plugged? I've never read more sad crap in my life. > > As one cold fusion-supporting physics Nobelist commented acidly: > "What do you expect from a site where submissions are unrefereed?" > This is the tiresome downside of Nature and the other Power Suit > Wearers refusing to let their referees look through the telescope. > > Damien Broderick > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Feb 9 22:33:27 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:33:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Keith Henson [Taken into Custody] (3) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207184512.03b76a20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207184512.03b76a20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20070209172243.08f3edd0@unreasonable.com> Keith wrote: >At 01:16 PM 2/3/2007 -0600, you wrote: > > >Please disregard this email. I totally missed this. I was thinking about > >something else and didn't realize that this was THE Keith Henson. > >LOL! I am not sure the world would put up with more than one of me. Not so fast, mister! I still recall our threads in paleolithic days when there was much talk of quintillions of Keith Hensons exploring the universe until the End-of-Time party. -- David. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 10 03:08:39 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:08:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Keith Henson [Taken into Custody] (3) In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20070209172243.08f3edd0@unreasonable.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207184512.03b76a20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070207184512.03b76a20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070209220721.03b60e40@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:33 PM 2/9/2007 -0500, David wrote: >Keith wrote: > > >At 01:16 PM 2/3/2007 -0600, you wrote: > > > > >Please disregard this email. I totally missed this. I was thinking about > > >something else and didn't realize that this was THE Keith Henson. > > > >LOL! I am not sure the world would put up with more than one of me. > >Not so fast, mister! I still recall our threads in paleolithic days >when there was much talk of quintillions of Keith Hensons exploring >the universe until the End-of-Time party. Yeah, but if you remember, those were all out of the world in fact, out of the solar system. Keith From amara at amara.com Sat Feb 10 08:14:19 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:14:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP Message-ID: Keith: >I am out, not in need of more money at the moment, but keep the checkbooks >and paypal accounts handy. I thought it was very amazing for the hundreds(?) of people to donate and for ExI to raise ~$5000 for you in 3 days (while the institute is in the process of closing too.) This is the first time in 15+ years that I saw the extropians+others open their wallets in a big way to help someone. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From benboc at lineone.net Sat Feb 10 09:41:47 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:41:47 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] astro lass goes orbital In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45CD935B.1040107@lineone.net> "spike" wrote: >I have a notion that might explain the bizarre behavior of the young woman >who managed to make NASAs elite astronaut corps, earn a master's degree and >make the rank of captain in the US Navy. Brain tumor? I doubt it's necessary to invoke something like that. She might have been an astronaut, but she's still a transmonkey, just like the rest of us. Is her behaviour so bizarre? I suspect that in evolutionary psych. terms it's not. >I would rather think her bizarre wackiness is caused by a tumor than to >worry that any one of us could flip out at any time over that endorphin >surge we call love. Wishful thinking, i suspect. Not trying to harsh anyone's buzz, here, but we have to face the fact that we are still very largely the products of undirected evolution. I bet there are things that can make even you 'go apeshit', even if you wish they didn't. Anders said: >The whole affair is so interesting because it clashes with Nasa's "No sex >please" policy: the official story is that there has never been any sex on >any space mission ever. These guys are saturated with physiological monitors when they're up there, no? All the time? (I think so). So NASA would *know* without any doubt, if any orbital nookie had ever occurred. I wonder if/when some kind of freedom of information act will make their records publicly available? Should be interesting (if you are a monkey interested in such things, that is :>) So when that celeb does claim to be the first, expect some hoary old ex-NASA astronaut to pipe up "Well, actually..." And there will be evidence to back them up. ben zaiboc From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 10:20:06 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:20:06 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] astro lass goes orbital In-Reply-To: <45CD935B.1040107@lineone.net> References: <45CD935B.1040107@lineone.net> Message-ID: <8d71341e0702100220x28b3ef44p5426723468fd14b7@mail.gmail.com> On 2/10/07, ben wrote: > > Not trying to harsh anyone's buzz, here, but we have to face the fact > that we are still very largely the products of undirected evolution. I > bet there are things that can make even you 'go apeshit', even if you > wish they didn't. Yeah, astronauts are fallible human beings like the rest of us. It may be a surprise that a particular person flips out like that, but it shouldn't be a surprise that nonzero percentage of any group will do it if you wait long enough. It's part of living in an imperfect world. So when that celeb does claim to be the first, expect some hoary old > ex-NASA astronaut to pipe up "Well, actually..." > Is there enough room on a spaceship for that sort of thing? I was under the impression it'd be rather like doing it on a seven-person minibus tour where you can't leave the minibus: not physically impossible, but in practice you'd probably wait until you're on the ground, off duty and in private. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 10 11:29:02 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:29:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070209161813.0232af78@satx.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> <20070209195302.GI21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209161813.0232af78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070210112901.GP21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:22:02PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > As one cold fusion-supporting physics Nobelist commented acidly: > "What do you expect from a site where submissions are unrefereed?" But the point is that the man is completely correct. Peer-review is supposed to weed out the crap. Life is too short do dig for diamonds (which might be there) in a pile of manure. Don't you listen? The overwhelming majority of the experiments I've read (with a few exceptions) are sloppy beyond imagination, the interpretations ludicrous (something blew up, instead of suspecting the obvious (air/hydrogen explosion) they postulate a nuclear source. Instead of ruling out the problem (argon or even nitrogen is dirt cheap), they submit this to LENR-CANR, and it gets proudly published! Did any of you read the stuff on http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html ? Did you? Really? Come on, do it. Do a representative sample, skim the papers, and then come back to me whether you think these are good papers. Whether the experiments are well-planned, well-executed, and well-interpreted. These experiments are as simple as they come. Even if it's not your field you can be the judge just fine. > This is the tiresome downside of Nature and the other Power Suit > Wearers refusing to let their referees look through the telescope. Peer review starts with reading the paper, and pointing out the deficiences. If the paper looks like swiss cheese, it's sunk already. Guess what? To my untrained and unjaundiced (in fact, I'd very much wish the anomalous experiments *were* true, and if my life did run differently you might even expect to find some contributions of mine there) eye most of the papers are total steaming pile of BULLSHIT. So don't come with the usual (the establishment conspiracy), read the things yourself, do the experiments yourself, and see whether you can get those output-4-times-of-input (nevermind the kW/cm^3 power densities) claims reproduced. The papers say they are simple to reproduce. So do it, and stop calling it a conspiracy. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 10 11:34:14 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:34:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <81ECAADA-F624-44C7-A592-4C75AD6654CA@goertzel.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> <20070209195302.GI21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209161813.0232af78@satx.rr.com> <81ECAADA-F624-44C7-A592-4C75AD6654CA@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 05:27:35PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > The question is not whether there has been BS posted online about > CF. Of course there has been. > > The question is whether there has been non-BS published about CF. > And it seems to me very likely that there has been, also. Don't arm-wave. Give me a couple of papers which are not BS. > In fact, you can find a bunch of BS about quantum theory online too. > That BS does not invalidate the theory. Of course they said that about spiritualists, too. Just because a few of them have been caught in the act, it doesn't mean there are no spirits. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From estropico at gmail.com Sat Feb 10 17:18:51 2007 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:18:51 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExtroBritannia's February event: the "Holborn Agenda" Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90702100918h1e8f6a70q5bd6a06e2b014c86@mail.gmail.com> The next ExtroBritannia get-together is scheduled for Saturday the 17th of Feb, 12,30pm at the Penderel's Oak, in Holborn, London. Everyone welcome. This month, we're discussing the mainstreaming of the life-extension meme, how to encourage it and what we can do to accelerate the pace of research in the area (such as Aubrey de Grey's SENS http://www.sens.org/). In other words, how do we "sell" indefinite lifespans to "the masses"? How do we lobby governmental bodies for more investment? After lunch we'll break up into small groups, in order to brainstorm on the subject. After this, we'll mix-up the groups for further brainstorming and then get back together to see what we've come up with. The goal of the exercise is to sketch the outlines of a workable plan of action: the Holborn Agenda. We will be at the Penderel's Oak from 12.30pm and will stay until late afternoon. Feel free to show up at any time. If it's your first time at an ExtroBritannia event, look out for a copy of Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" at our table. Here's a picture of the book's cover: http://tinyurl.com/9khnx The Penderel's Oak 283-288 High Holborn London WC1V 7HJ Tel: 0207 242 5669 Nearest tube: Holborn MAP: http://tinyurl.com/29swq --- The ExtroBritannia mailing list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extrobritannia The ExtroBritannia Blog: http://www.extrobritannia.blogspot.com ExtroBritannia is the monthly public event of the UK Transhumanist Association: http://www.transhumanist.org.uk From jonkc at att.net Sat Feb 10 17:17:23 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:17:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><39E0FB11-360B-41EA-82A1-B4279D5976EB@goertzel.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070207174220.0225dde8@satx.rr.com> <9511B693-C61B-4F78-997F-64E330788CDB@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <003401c74d37$60b9d540$f6074e0c@MyComputer> Speaking of BULLSHIT, on the front page of today?s New York Times there is an article about the ESP ?lab? at Princeton (PEAR). It is closing down after 28 years. One of the chief witchdoctors there is quoted as saying something that to my surprise I agree with completely: ?There is no reason to stay and generate more of the same data. If people don?t believe us after all the results we?ve produced then they never will.? More crappy data just will not help. The article also describes the joy many at the university felt about its demise and how none of the 700 full professors at Princeton had joined PEAR, and how they never got published in first rate science journals, and how they went to the National Enquire of science journals ?The Society for Scientific Exploration? a rag that is never cited by anybody worth reading. Besides ESP it also loves UFOs, spoon bending, and of course cold fusion. But that august journal does not love everything, it prints attacks on relativity and evolution. John K Clark From scerir at libero.it Sat Feb 10 17:08:26 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:08:26 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com><20070209195302.GI21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070209161813.0232af78@satx.rr.com><81ECAADA-F624-44C7-A592-4C75AD6654CA@goertzel.org> <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> Eugen Leitl: Give me a couple of papers which are not BS. # I'm biased, maybe, because I knew Giuliano Preparata [1][2], but the paper below seems good. (It is the only paper I've read, on CF). That is to say, the experimental part seems (to me) serious (definitely not BS), and the theoretical model seems (to me) interesting [3]. A.De Ninno, A. Frattolillo, A. Rizzo, E. del Giudice, G. Preparata "Experimental evidence of 4He production in a cold fusion experiment" RT/2002/41/FUS http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf www.fusione.enea.it/pubblications/TR/2002/RT-2002-41-FUS.pdf [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Preparata [2] Giuliano Preparata 1942-2000 http://cerncourier.com/main/article/40/6/22 Italian theoretician Giuliano Preparata died in Frascati on 24 April after a relatively short battle against cancer. Born in Padua, he studied in Rome. After graduating in 1964 he joined Raoul Gatto's group in Florence. Later he was in the US at Princeton, Harvard and Rockefeller universities. In those years he produced excellent work on symmetries, current algebra and on the field theory approach to particle physics. After returning to Rome, he was soon called to CERN as a staff member. He was later Professor of Theoretical Physics at Bari and Milan. Preparata was a theorist of great talent, with tremendous drive and a strong personality. His most recognized contribution to particle physics is the extension of the Wilson short-distance operator expansion to the whole of the light cone, developed in collaboration with Richard Brandt in around 1970. This remains a basic theoretical tool for the understanding of inclusive electron-positron annihilation and deep inelastic lepton scattering. However, his interests were already very wide and, in the same years, he produced a well known, seminal paper on nonlinear quantum optics with Rodolfo Bonifacio. With time he progressively became critical of many steps in the construction of the Standard Model and of some parts of its foundations, such as QCD. His interests were then increasingly concentrated on different subjects, often with non-conventional approaches and opinions, such as nuclear physics, superconductivity, cold fusion and quantum gravity. He worked until the end with great energy. He was at CERN for the last time in January, when Remo Ruffini gave a presentation on their work on a possible mechanism for the production of gamma-ray bursts. [3] I mean the 'Preparata effect', a sort of Bohm-Aharonov effect, in which the e.m. (vector) potential, and not the field, acts on wavefunctions and changes the phases [4]. But the complete theoretical model (with detailed calculations predicting experimental thresholds, etc.) was published in a book, and I do not have infos about it. [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect http://msc.phys.rug.nl/quantummechanics/ab.htm From scerir at libero.it Sat Feb 10 17:35:50 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:35:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] qc or chimera? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com><20070209195302.GI21677@leitl.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070209161813.0232af78@satx.rr.com><81ECAADA-F624-44C7-A592-4C75AD6654CA@goertzel.org> <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <000f01c74d39$e892adf0$80bd1f97@archimede> quantum computer demo (announced): http://dwavesys.com/ http://dwave.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/quantum-computing-demo-announcement/ excitement: try "d-wave" "quantum computer" on Google skepticism: http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=198 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1427 From ben at goertzel.org Sat Feb 10 18:04:59 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:04:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> <20070209195302.GI21677@leitl.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209161813.0232af78@satx.rr.com> <81ECAADA-F624-44C7-A592-4C75AD6654CA@goertzel.org> <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0702101004j46040be8x520f6d08435cff56@mail.gmail.com> On 2/10/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 05:27:35PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > The question is not whether there has been BS posted online about > > CF. Of course there has been. > > > > The question is whether there has been non-BS published about CF. > > And it seems to me very likely that there has been, also. > > Don't arm-wave. Give me a couple of papers which are not BS. This guy is a serious scientist, here is an interesting interview with him: http://www.newenergytimes.com/Conversations/McKubre.htm The various conclusions of the 2004 DOE CF panelists are also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_DoE_panel_on_cold_fusion#Main_conclusions_of_the_review_by_the_panelists As for papers, here are some papers cited by the 2002 and 2004 DOE reports: Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys 37, L1274 (1998) Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, "Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation". Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642. Mizuno, T., et al., "Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39 p. 6055, (2000) M.H. Miles et al., "Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H20 electrolysis using Palladium cathodes", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99 B.F. Bush et al, "Helium production during the electrolysis of D20 in cold fusion", J. Electroanal. Chem. 346 (1993) 99 Hagelstein P. et al., "New physical effects in metal deuterides", Appendix C. submitted to the 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion -- Ben From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 10 18:20:45 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:20:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 06:08:26PM +0100, scerir wrote: > # I'm biased, maybe, because I knew > Giuliano Preparata [1][2], but the > paper below seems good. (It is the > only paper I've read, on CF). Superficially, it's not a bad paper at all. One thing which immediately springs to mind: I don't see a control experiment with light water mentioned anywhere. Also, loading of Pd by hydrogen (or deuterium) produces cracks. I don't see thinning of the electrode and fusing the result by current ruled out anywhere in the paper. Isolated, this is not at all damning. However, the cumulated effect of other papers with sloppy design and irreproducibility needs to be accounted. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From ben at goertzel.org Sat Feb 10 18:31:45 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:31:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> On 2/10/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 06:08:26PM +0100, scerir wrote: > > > # I'm biased, maybe, because I knew > > Giuliano Preparata [1][2], but the > > paper below seems good. (It is the > > only paper I've read, on CF). > > Superficially, it's not a bad paper at all. > One thing which immediately springs to mind: > I don't see a control experiment with light > water mentioned anywhere. There are other papers presenting such comparisons however, e.g. Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys 37, L1274 (1998) From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 10 18:49:54 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:49:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 01:31:45PM -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > There are other papers presenting such comparisons however, e.g. The point is that the experimenters didn't seem to have ran such a control in their own setup. If true, this is a cardinal mistake. Completely inexcusable. You simply Don't Do It. Controls in other setups don't count as far as this particular paper is concerned, because whatever dirt effects operate here don't operate in other setups. > Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction > energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys > 37, L1274 (1998) Have you read it? I don't have access to most journals but for private subscriptions, so if anyone can send me that paper I'd be very thankful. I wish I had also more time to write down what my particular beef with LENR-CANR as a whole is. (Mostly, is that this whole body of claims taken together is mutually inconsistent. It stinks). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jonkc at att.net Sat Feb 10 18:37:26 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:37:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070207171840.02a09510@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070208155856.03a2a8d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><001401c74c78$802ae5f0$c1084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070209125326.04a348e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <009101c74d42$e6561550$f6074e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" Wrote: >From time to time heavy-duty psychology journals > publish papers, pro and con [about Psi] , such as those > by Cornell University psychology professor Daryl Bem > in Psychological Bulletin and Behavioral and Brain > Sciences. Journals at that level do not, I observe, publish > research papers into Tooth Fairy Electrodynamics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences? Psychological Bulletin? I confess I've never heard of them, but maybe that was just my ignorance, so I looked up the top 10 most cited (respected) journals in the field of Neuroscience & Behavior and this is what I got: 1 Nature 2 Science 3 Neuron 4 Nature Neuroscience 5 PNAS 6 Journal of Neuroscience 7 Annals of Neurology 8 Brain 9 Biological Psychiatry 10 Cerebral Cortex Dear me your journals don't seem to be there, they can't be all that heavy duty. But maybe they are on the list of overall most cited journals. 1 Journal of Biological Chemistry 2 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 3 Nature 4 Science 5 Physical Review Letters 6 Cell 7 J. American Chemical Society 8 Physical Review 9 Journal of Immunology 10 New England Journal of Medicine Not there either. Top 10 Physics journals maybe? 1 Science 2 Nature 3 Physical Review Letters 4 Nuclear Physics 5 PNAS 6 Physics Letters 7 Physical Review D 8 Europ. Physical J. C 9 Applied Physics Letters 10 Nuclear Fusion Nope. How about Chemistry? 1 Nature 2 Science 3 PNAS 4 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 5 J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 6 Analytical Chemistry 7 J. Medicinal Chemistry 8 Electrophoresis 9 Chemistry-European J. 10 J. Combinatorial Chem. I still don't see Behavioral and Brain Sciences or Psychological Bulletin, but let me know when any of the above journals publishes something about ESP or cold fusion. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 10 19:00:00 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:00:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070210113546.03a66e28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:14 AM 2/10/2007 +0100, Amara wrote: >Keith: > >I am out, not in need of more money at the moment, but keep the checkbooks > >and paypal accounts handy. > >I thought it was very amazing for the hundreds(?) of people to donate and >for ExI to raise ~$5000 for you in 3 days (while the institute is in >the process of closing too.) This is the first time in 15+ years that I saw >the extropians+others open their wallets in a big way to help someone. I sincerely appreciate every donation. As important was Amara finding Michael Kielsky (I think Natasha and Robert Bradbury might have also been involved). Without his able representation, chances are I would still be in jail if not being shipped off to Riverside. I am really annoyed at scientology distracting me at this time. In the process of writing a novel set a hundred years in the future, I had to come up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to notes so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. Unless there is objection, I might post some of them. They tend to be math heavy. Keith From ben at goertzel.org Sat Feb 10 20:23:42 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:23:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> > > There are other papers presenting such comparisons however, e.g. > > The point is that the experimenters didn't seem to have ran > such a control in their own setup. If true, this is a cardinal > mistake. Completely inexcusable. You simply Don't Do It. This control experiment has been run many times, however. So far as I know, no one ever reported big bursts of heat production using ordinary water rather than heavy water. I am not an expert on experimental design in this domain, but from what I read in Beaudette's book, different researchers chose to use different sorts of controls; and some did use the kind that you suggest. > > Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction > > energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys > > 37, L1274 (1998) > > Have you read it? No, I just picked it out because Arata's work is discussed in Beaudette's book, and the title mentioned the type of control experiment you mentioned. Also, I would suggest you look at McKubre's papers, at the lenr-canr archive. >From what I can tell he is a good researcher; he is at SRI which is a high-quality institution, and he worked on CF for many years (and still is, I think). A number of his works in the area are available on that site. I would be curious if you have complaints about the quality of his work. -- Ben From ben at goertzel.org Sat Feb 10 20:30:03 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:30:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0702101230q68e3944ege06510c2bf781259@mail.gmail.com> Eugen, Here is a paper by McKubre that compares heavy vs. light water results for CF type experiments http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf It was written almost 17 years ago. Ben On 2/10/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > There are other papers presenting such comparisons however, e.g. > > > > The point is that the experimenters didn't seem to have ran > > such a control in their own setup. If true, this is a cardinal > > mistake. Completely inexcusable. You simply Don't Do It. > > This control experiment has been run many times, however. > > So far as I know, no one ever reported big bursts of heat production > using ordinary water rather than heavy water. > > I am not an expert on experimental design in this domain, but from > what I read in Beaudette's book, different researchers chose to use > different sorts of controls; and some did use the kind that you suggest. > > > > Y. Arata and Y-C Zhang, "Anomalous difference between reaction > > > energies generated within D20-cell and H20 Cell", Jpn. J. Appl. Phys > > > 37, L1274 (1998) > > > > Have you read it? > > No, I just picked it out because Arata's work is discussed in Beaudette's book, > and the title mentioned the type of control experiment you mentioned. > > Also, I would suggest you look at McKubre's papers, at the lenr-canr archive. > > From what I can tell he is a good researcher; he is at SRI which is a > high-quality institution, and he worked on CF for many years (and > still is, I think). > > A number of his works in the area are available on that site. > > I would be curious if you have complaints about the quality of his work. > > -- Ben > From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Feb 10 23:14:30 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:14:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210171229.03fb5e28@satx.rr.com> At 02:00 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > I had to come >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to notes >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 11 00:48:39 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:48:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210171229.03fb5e28@satx.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070210194648.03b526c8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:14 PM 2/10/2007 -0600, Damien wrote: >At 02:00 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > > I had to come > >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to notes > >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > >Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. Any though as to how one might show something to Richard Branson? If he is like any other wealthy person he has layers of buffers around him. Keith Henson From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 11 01:19:23 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:19:23 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210191822.022839c8@satx.rr.com> At 07:48 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > > > > I had to come > > >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to notes > > >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > > > >Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. > >Any though as to how one might show something to Richard Branson? why, yes, in general terms: Airline tycoon Richard Branson has announced a $US25 million ($A32m) prize for the first person to come up with a way of scrubbing greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere in the battle to beat global warming. Flanked by climate campaigners former US vice-president Al Gore and British ex-diplomat Crispin Tickell, Sir Richard said he hoped the Virgin Earth Challenge would spur innovative and creative thought to save mankind from self-destruction. The prize will initially be open for five years, with ideas assessed by a panel of judges including Sir Richard, Mr Gore and Mr Tickell as well as Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery, US climate scientist James Hansen and Briton James Lovelock. "Man created the problem and therefore man should solve the problem," he said. "Unless we can devise a way of removing CO 2 (carbon dioxide) from the Earth's atmosphere we will lose half of all species on Earth, all the coral reefs, 100 million people will be displaced, farmlands will become deserts and rainforests wastelands." Sir Richard rejected suggestions that he, as an airline owner, was being hypocritical in offering the prize. "I could ground my airline today, but British Airways would simply take its place," he said, noting that he was investing in cleaner engines and fuels. Top scientists predict that global average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and four degrees this century due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels, putting millions at risk from rising sea levels, floods, famines and storms. Mr Gore, whose campaign film An Inconvenient Truth has helped spread the message, said all science showed something was drastically wrong but that Armageddon was not inevitable. The winner must devise a way of removing 1 billion tonnes of carbon gases a year from the atmosphere for 10 years ? with $US5 million ($AS6.4m) of the prize being paid at the start and the rest at the end. If no winner is identified after five years the judges can decide to extend the period. "This is the world's first deliberate attempt at planetary engineering," Dr Flannery said via video-link from Sydney. "We are at the last moment. Once we reach the tipping point it will have been taken out of our hands." REUTERS From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 01:43:48 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:13:48 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210191822.022839c8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210191822.022839c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0702101743v5b90d308j32f3aa92abfdedb@mail.gmail.com> Couldn't we darken the atmosphere to counteract the greenhouse effect? Kind of nuclear winter vs global warming... Emlyn On 11/02/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 07:48 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > > > > > > I had to come > > > >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to > notes > > > >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > > > > > >Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. > > > >Any though as to how one might show something to Richard Branson? > > why, yes, in general terms: > > > Airline tycoon Richard Branson has announced a > $US25 million ($A32m) prize for the first person > to come up with a way of scrubbing greenhouse > gases out of the atmosphere in the battle to beat global warming. > > Flanked by climate campaigners former US > vice-president Al Gore and British ex-diplomat > Crispin Tickell, Sir Richard said he hoped the > Virgin Earth Challenge would spur innovative and > creative thought to save mankind from self-destruction. > > The prize will initially be open for five years, > with ideas assessed by a panel of judges > including Sir Richard, Mr Gore and Mr Tickell as > well as Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery, > US climate scientist James Hansen and Briton > James Lovelock. "Man created the problem and > therefore man should solve the problem," he said. > > "Unless we can devise a way of removing CO 2 > (carbon dioxide) from the Earth's atmosphere we > will lose half of all species on Earth, all the > coral reefs, 100 million people will be > displaced, farmlands will become deserts and rainforests wastelands." > > Sir Richard rejected suggestions that he, as an > airline owner, was being hypocritical in offering > the prize. "I could ground my airline today, but > British Airways would simply take its place," he > said, noting that he was investing in cleaner engines and fuels. > > Top scientists predict that global average > temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and four > degrees this century due to human activities such > as burning fossil fuels, putting millions at risk > from rising sea levels, floods, famines and storms. > > Mr Gore, whose campaign film An Inconvenient > Truth has helped spread the message, said all > science showed something was drastically wrong > but that Armageddon was not inevitable. > > The winner must devise a way of removing 1 > billion tonnes of carbon gases a year from the > atmosphere for 10 years ? with $US5 million > ($AS6.4m) of the prize being paid at the start and the rest at the end. > > If no winner is identified after five years the > judges can decide to extend the period. > > "This is the world's first deliberate attempt at > planetary engineering," Dr Flannery said via > video-link from Sydney. "We are at the last > moment. Once we reach the tipping point it will > have been taken out of our hands." > > REUTERS > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Feb 11 01:33:49 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:33:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070210194648.03b526c8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <003401c74d7c$b2e1e2a0$0200a8c0@Nano> Well here is the home page for the challenge: http://www.virginearth.com/ Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html At 05:14 PM 2/10/2007 -0600, Damien wrote: >At 02:00 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > > I had to come > >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to notes > >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > >Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. Any though as to how one might show something to Richard Branson? If he is like any other wealthy person he has layers of buffers around him. Keith Henson _______________________________________________ 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 ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 01:48:33 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:48:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210191822.022839c8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210191822.022839c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0702101748h2f259b6br633789c58f94a43b@mail.gmail.com> Keith, If you have a clearly articulated idea that makes sense, it can be gotten in front of Richard Branson. Getting in front of rich people is not easy but it's far from impossible either; I have done it for other purposes a couple times.... Social networking is powerful... -- Ben On 2/10/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:48 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > > > > > > I had to come > > > >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to notes > > > >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > > > > > >Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. > > > >Any though as to how one might show something to Richard Branson? > > why, yes, in general terms: > > > Airline tycoon Richard Branson has announced a > $US25 million ($A32m) prize for the first person > to come up with a way of scrubbing greenhouse > gases out of the atmosphere in the battle to beat global warming. > > Flanked by climate campaigners former US > vice-president Al Gore and British ex-diplomat > Crispin Tickell, Sir Richard said he hoped the > Virgin Earth Challenge would spur innovative and > creative thought to save mankind from self-destruction. > > The prize will initially be open for five years, > with ideas assessed by a panel of judges > including Sir Richard, Mr Gore and Mr Tickell as > well as Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery, > US climate scientist James Hansen and Briton > James Lovelock. "Man created the problem and > therefore man should solve the problem," he said. > > "Unless we can devise a way of removing CO 2 > (carbon dioxide) from the Earth's atmosphere we > will lose half of all species on Earth, all the > coral reefs, 100 million people will be > displaced, farmlands will become deserts and rainforests wastelands." > > Sir Richard rejected suggestions that he, as an > airline owner, was being hypocritical in offering > the prize. "I could ground my airline today, but > British Airways would simply take its place," he > said, noting that he was investing in cleaner engines and fuels. > > Top scientists predict that global average > temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and four > degrees this century due to human activities such > as burning fossil fuels, putting millions at risk > from rising sea levels, floods, famines and storms. > > Mr Gore, whose campaign film An Inconvenient > Truth has helped spread the message, said all > science showed something was drastically wrong > but that Armageddon was not inevitable. > > The winner must devise a way of removing 1 > billion tonnes of carbon gases a year from the > atmosphere for 10 years ? with $US5 million > ($AS6.4m) of the prize being paid at the start and the rest at the end. > > If no winner is identified after five years the > judges can decide to extend the period. > > "This is the world's first deliberate attempt at > planetary engineering," Dr Flannery said via > video-link from Sydney. "We are at the last > moment. Once we reach the tipping point it will > have been taken out of our hands." > > REUTERS > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Feb 11 02:01:55 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:01:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World Message-ID: <005101c74d81$39479160$0200a8c0@Nano> Also found this: Sir Richard Branson, Virgin Management Limited, 120 Campden Hill Road, London W8 7AR from here: http://www.virginradio.co.uk/about_us/faq/ Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html From: Gina Miller Well here is the home page for the challenge: http://www.virginearth.com/ Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html At 05:14 PM 2/10/2007 -0600, Damien wrote: >At 02:00 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > > I had to come > >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to notes > >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > >Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. Any though as to how one might show something to Richard Branson? If he is like any other wealthy person he has layers of buffers around him. Keith Henson _______________________________________________ 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 natasha at natasha.cc Sun Feb 11 03:29:02 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:29:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0702101748h2f259b6br633789c58f94a43b@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210191822.022839c8@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0702101748h2f259b6br633789c58f94a43b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070210212654.0422dbd8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 07:48 PM 2/10/2007, you wrote: >Keith, > >If you have a clearly articulated idea that makes sense, it can be >gotten in front of Richard Branson. Getting in front of rich people >is not easy but it's far from impossible either; I have done it for >other purposes a couple times.... Social networking is powerful... I LOVE this challenge/mission! I'm going to be thinking about this for a while ... I wonder if he is a friend of Sir Bob Geldlof who I have a direct connection with. Does anyone know if they are linked on any project? Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Feb 11 06:37:31 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:37:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com><20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> "Benjamin Goertzel" > This control experiment has been run many times, however. Thank you, you have provided a perfect example of why cold fusion "research" is so incredibly crappy, and ESP "research" is even worse; the idea that a control experiment is a luxury and not a necessity. But then, if you want to find something that doesn't exist it's best not to be too skilled in the art of experimentation. > A number of his works in the area are available on that site. Yes, on that site. Not in that respected peer reviewed journal, but on that site. > From what I can tell he is a good researcher And how did you determine that he was a good researcher, from ESP? Or did it come to you in a dream? It's not peer reviewed, there is no way to know if he did anything at all except sit at a terminal and upload a ASCII sequence onto a website. That is the sum total of what we know of what he did. That's it. I could easily post to a friendly website and claim to have invented a perpetual motion machine. I could then dream up experiments I claim to have actually performed and supply a long list of data I claim the experiments produced. Of course all that data would support the idea that perpetual motion is possible. It wouldn't be difficult to do, not difficult at all, after all it's not peer reviewed. I don't know what to say, it's like something out of Monty Python. I can just picture John Cleese having a transcendental experience when he sees a magician at a child's birthday party pull a quarter out of a kid's ear. Have a little skepticism people! John K Clark From amara at amara.com Sun Feb 11 06:49:23 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:49:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP Message-ID: >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:00:00 -0500 >From: Keith Henson >I sincerely appreciate every donation. > >As important was Amara finding Michael Kielsky (I think Natasha and Robert >Bradbury might have also been involved). > No, it's not what you think. Please read your private email where I say how it came about. At the end many^n pitched in here and elsewhere to give the result you had. It wasn't only money that they gave. You can read the record on the extropy-chat list last weekend to get an idea. Must catch a plane now. Amara From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 08:14:25 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:14:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans and EP In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070210113546.03a66e28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070210113546.03a66e28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 2/10/07, Keith Henson wrote: > As important was Amara finding Michael Kielsky (I think Natasha and Robert > Bradbury might have also been involved). I spoke with him briefly and after discussing things a bit with him and determining his Libertarian party affiliation thought he might be a good person to involve. He also seemed to have a good legal strategy. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 09:08:24 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:08:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] Message-ID: On 2/10/07, Keith Henson wrote: > I am really annoyed at scientology distracting me at this time. In the > process of writing a novel set a hundred years in the future, I had to come > up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to notes so > extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. I'm not so sure there is the "energy" crisis that people typically think there is. The U.S., Europe, Russia, China, and India all have the technology to go nuclear. Newer reactor designs are safer. Reactors to breed U or fuel recycling could provide a multi-hundred year source of non-global warming electricity. Atomic based electricity can give you hydrogen even if you don't want to go solar. Where nanotech (or bionanotech) really helps is allowing you to do low cost pure isotopic separation to allow inexpensive nuclear transmutation of radioactive isotopes into stable isotopes (making the "waste" problem disappear). The same is true with solar electric. We have the technology now to do 35+% efficient conversion and universities are being funded to push this to ~50%. What we lack is sufficient factory production of solar panels to make the costs low enough and the conversion process fast enough for it to happen in less than a few decades. While SPS are a good idea it is a much more expensive technology until you have the factories available to manufacture the required quantities of carbon nanotubes *cheaply*. For the next several decades, I would expect the costs of the factories to build the nanotubes would significantly exeed the costs of factories to build the solar electric or solar thermal cells. Interesting numbers to know would be the tons of CNT required for a space elevator vs. tons of Si+Ge+As (or CdS) required to have ground based solar cells. It is also true that for SPS you are going to need the solar cell manufacturing capacity *anyway* because going into space is only going to buy you a factor of 2-3 in solar energy availability [1]. France has already shown you can go nuclear electric (if you have the political will to do so). Brazil has shown you can go ethanol fuel. Spain appears to be going in the direction of wind electric. If you look at the economic shifts that Britain and the U.S. underwent in WWII it is clear that emphasis could be shifted very rapidly if there were a political commitment to do so. The "energy crisis" is is a political *leadership* problem. (If you look at recent proposals to ban incandescent bulbs entirely in CA and in state buildings in NJ you can see some law makers are starting to see the light.) If I were a VC looking at a business plan for SPS vs. ground based solar I'd want to see an analysis of the costs of building the CNT factories + space solar cell factories vs. the costs of ground based solar cell factories to accomplish converting the U.S. totally to solar electric in 20 years. Now, this leaves aside that the U.S. could become significantly more energy efficient than it currently is. The NY Times had a recent article comparing U.S. per capita energy consumption with Japan's and we could make a significant improvement simply becoming more energy conscious (as many European nations are). I stopped paying any attention to the "global warming" problem after I realized that you could solve it seemed that you could solve it simply by fertilizing the oceans [2]. So one would want to compare costs between fertilizing the oceans and pumping the CO2 from coal or gas based power plants back underground (and the costs of space elevators & SPS). As an important general rule, I would argue that any system of energy production that is based on self-replicating nanosystems (corn, switchgrass, oceanic bacteria, solar ponds + synthetic biology based bacteria) is going to be significantly cheaper than any system that does *not* rely on extremely high levels of automation to produce the required infrastructure. (And designing that automated production infrastructure usually requires a lot of human intelligence in up-front costs.) That *still* doesn't solve the vehicle fuel problem unless you convert all of the vehicles to electric (which we appear to have the technology to do currently but not cheaply enough to make it acceptable). Or as Brazil has shown you could convert to a sustainable fuel supply for vehicles which relies on taking carbon out of the atmosphere and returning the carbon to the atmosphere rather than on non-sustainable methods based on harvesting the resources resulting from ancient solar energy and the activity of plants and bacteria producing hydrocarbons that are now either underground or on the ocean floor. I would also note, that while there are clear solutions to the energy needs, and there is an argument that global warming would actually make *more* land area available for human habitation, there are less clear solutions for world hunger [3] (which is the cause of millions of deaths annually). SPS are *not* going to do anything to solve that problem unless you simultaneously intend to use all of that excess electricity to illuminate farms at night or produce synthetic food using the electricity they would provide. In contrast, the systems *are* already in place to take advantage of ocean fertilization because an increase in oceanic bacterial numbers translates into increased numbers of larger organisms that can be used to feed more people cheaply (we already have infrastructure to harvest the oceans which tends to sit idle due to the problem of overfishing). Robert 1. I think solar insolation is ~1300 W/m^2 above the atmosphere and more like 400-500 W/m^2 at the Earth's surface (largely because the UV and IR are aborbed). Whether you could take advantage of the UV & IR in space is an open question because more complex cell designs would probably be required. 2. "Global Warming is a Red Herring" (2002) http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Papers/GWiaRH.html (It should be updated, but it makes lays out the approach.) 3. http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 11 10:57:07 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:57:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0702101743v5b90d308j32f3aa92abfdedb@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210191822.022839c8@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0702101743v5b90d308j32f3aa92abfdedb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070211105707.GT21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:13:48PM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > > Couldn't we darken the atmosphere to counteract the greenhouse effect? > Kind of nuclear winter vs global warming... Instead of investing in cleaner jet fuels, he'd better 1) make them burn dirty, preferrably inject ice nucleators 2) fly high, as high as possible 3) long-term, fly with synfuel or cryogenic hydrogen as fuel, made from renewable sources Global dimming needs a comeback. As to "scrubbing greenhouse gaess out of the atmosphere", that's a red herring. They're are already being rather efficiently scrubbed, what is needed is reducing our emissions. And it doesn't take 25 megabucks to figure out how, we already know. > > > > Emlyn > > > On 11/02/07, Damien Broderick <[1]thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote: > > At 07:48 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > > > > > > I had to come > > > >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That > led to notes > > > >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > > > > > >Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. > > > >Any though as to how one might show something to Richard Branson? > why, yes, in general terms: > Airline tycoon Richard Branson has announced a > $US25 million ($A32m) prize for the first person > to come up with a way of scrubbing greenhouse > gases out of the atmosphere in the battle to beat global warming. > Flanked by climate campaigners former US > vice-president Al Gore and British ex-diplomat > Crispin Tickell, Sir Richard said he hoped the > Virgin Earth Challenge would spur innovative and > creative thought to save mankind from self-destruction. > The prize will initially be open for five years, > with ideas assessed by a panel of judges > including Sir Richard, Mr Gore and Mr Tickell as > well as Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery, > US climate scientist James Hansen and Briton > James Lovelock. "Man created the problem and > therefore man should solve the problem," he said. > "Unless we can devise a way of removing CO 2 > (carbon dioxide) from the Earth's atmosphere we > will lose half of all species on Earth, all the > coral reefs, 100 million people will be > displaced, farmlands will become deserts and rainforests > wastelands." > Sir Richard rejected suggestions that he, as an > airline owner, was being hypocritical in offering > the prize. "I could ground my airline today, but > British Airways would simply take its place," he > said, noting that he was investing in cleaner engines and fuels. > Top scientists predict that global average > temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and four > degrees this century due to human activities such > as burning fossil fuels, putting millions at risk > from rising sea levels, floods, famines and storms. > Mr Gore, whose campaign film An Inconvenient > Truth has helped spread the message, said all > science showed something was drastically wrong > but that Armageddon was not inevitable. > The winner must devise a way of removing 1 > billion tonnes of carbon gases a year from the > atmosphere for 10 years with $US5 million > ($AS6.4m) of the prize being paid at the start and the rest at the > end. > If no winner is identified after five years the > judges can decide to extend the period. > "This is the world's first deliberate attempt at > planetary engineering," Dr Flannery said via > video-link from Sydney. "We are at the last > moment. Once we reach the tipping point it will > have been taken out of our hands." > REUTERS > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > [2]extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > [3]http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > References > > 1. mailto:thespike at satx.rr.com > 2. mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > 3. http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 11 12:26:18 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:26:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070211122617.GA21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:08:24AM +0000, Robert Bradbury wrote: > I'm not so sure there is the "energy" crisis that people typically > think there is. The U.S., Europe, Russia, China, and India all have > the technology to go nuclear. Newer reactor designs are safer. Nuclear has bigger problems than fossil. For one, high-grade uranium ore deposits are limited and localized (peak uranium). If you integrate over the entire life cycle, starting with the mine, tails remediation, processing, isotope enrichment, building the plant, operating it, and decomissioning it, you'll see that nuclear is not exactly emission-neutral, nor particularly cheap. As an energy source it's as subsidized as they come. Okay, thorium doesn't have most of such problems, but the funds required for R&D to make it a viable alternative to uranium fission would be much, much better spent on renewable infrastructure and R&D. > Reactors to breed U or fuel recycling could provide a multi-hundred Breeders are unsafe. Recycling is reasonably dirty; liquid-core thorium might navigate around such problems, but then, it isn't there. > year source of non-global warming electricity. Atomic based > electricity can give you hydrogen even if you don't want to go solar. Why do we need hydrogen, especially right now? If all new cars are required by law to be able to handle M90 (and E90, though that's idiotic) it would take a while until world output (32 MT/a in 2004) of methanol is stepped up. Methane is almost hydrogen, newer methanol routes through direct methane oxidation avoid the lossy syngas/Fischer-Tropsch route, DMFC cars are at least twice energy efficient than plain ICEs. PV/EV alone is long-term sufficient to solve the vehicular emission problem. > this to ~50%. What we lack is sufficient factory production of solar > panels to make the costs low enough and the conversion process fast Right now the solar growth has been so rapid, silicon has become a scarce commodity. The markets are already hard-pressed to put up with the growth, so further forecast is very sunny. > France has already shown you can go nuclear electric (if you have the I don't think emulating France right now is smart idea, unless you've got large domestic pechblende deposits (of course, you can just sell them, too, and import the rest). > political will to do so). Brazil has shown you can go ethanol fuel. Bioethanol doesn't work. What Brazil has shown that if you don't have a native chemical industry, but lots of cheap labor and suitable climate and don't mind putting in a lot of energy if you want to have is liquid fuel you can do it. This might (kinda, sorta) work for parts of Africa. For everyone else, it's a case of heating your house with dollar bills. > Spain appears to be going in the direction of wind electric. If you Wind is already cost-effective in specific locations (largely, coastal and mountain regions). It faces the problem of all renewable: the current grid is too coarse-grained and too centralistic to deal with unpredictable fine-grained local input. I don't think the problem is reformable, at least it's worth investing into it. It might make more sense to build up a new parallel grid bottom up, fine-grained and with control and markets built-in. > look at the economic shifts that Britain and the U.S. underwent in > WWII it is clear that emphasis could be shifted very rapidly if there "very rapidly" doesn't work, unless there's a war. Then some selected things suddenly "work", to the great detriment of everything else. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Feb 11 13:25:19 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:25:19 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53910.86.130.31.99.1171200319.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: > I stopped paying any attention to the "global warming" problem after I > realized that you could solve it seemed that you could solve it simply by > fertilizing the oceans [2]. Experiments in doing so have shown that it is harder than it looks. Those pesky algal blooms seem to misbehave quite a bit. Probably not impossible to do, but it would require a lot of work. My own current favorite carbon sink is fertilizing soils and lakes with olivin. It both neutralizes overly acid soils (making it a good candidate for cleaning up eastern europe) and absorbs carbon dioxide. R. D. Schuiling and P. Krijgsman, Enhanced Weathering: An Effective and Cheap Tool to Sequester Co2, Climatic Change, Volume 74, Numbers 1-3 / January, 2006 http://www.springerlink.com/content/78528604337v3773/ I noted that Nature this week (or was it last week?) in their coverage of the IPCC admitted that research into climate change adaptation had been woefully ignored. The stated reason was that the emission reduction people felt that any alternative to reducing emission would only encourage 'bad habits', so they did their best to cucoo out geoengineering and attempts to figure out in how to live in a climate changed world. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From brent.allsop at comcast.net Sun Feb 11 13:11:20 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:11:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Multi Homing? Message-ID: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Extropians, Do any of you guys "Multi Home" your home network internet connection? I currently have Comcast cable as my primary connection, but would like to include a Quest DSL modem redundant connection to increase reliability and bandwidth. (Comcast has been down for a week or so twice last year.) I would also like to upgrade to gigabit in my home so I can transfer live video and stuff. One possibility I see is getting a ?dual wan? capable router that does ?load balancing?. There seems to be lots of these out there, but the only one that supports gigabit on the LAN side seems to be NetGear's FVS124G: http://www.netgear.com/Products/VPNandSSL/WiredVPNFirewallRouters/FVS124G.as px But from the reviews this sounds like it might be a very unreliable box? Some other friends of mine are saying I should just configure my Linux box to have several NIC cards and have it handle the WAN connections and NAT services... Are these the only two possibilities? Which of these would be the best for someone that is not a professional network administrator? And which would run reliably without having the router crash all the time?? Any ideas, tips, or personal success stories would be greatly appreciated? Thanks Brent Allsop -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 2/10/2007 9:15 PM From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 11 13:44:31 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:44:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <53910.86.130.31.99.1171200319.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <53910.86.130.31.99.1171200319.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20070211134431.GC21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:25:19PM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > I stopped paying any attention to the "global warming" problem after I > > realized that you could solve it seemed that you could solve it simply by > > fertilizing the oceans [2]. > > Experiments in doing so have shown that it is harder than it looks. Those > pesky algal blooms seem to misbehave quite a bit. Probably not impossible > to do, but it would require a lot of work. By the way, there happens to be a review on it in one of the recent Science Magazines: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5812/612 cience 2 February 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5812, pp. 612 - 617 DOI: 10.1126/science.1131669 Prev | Table of Contents | Next Review Mesoscale Iron Enrichment Experiments 1993-2005: Synthesis and Future Directions P. W. Boyd,1* T. Jickells,2 C. S. Law,3 S. Blain,4 E. A. Boyle,5 K. O. Buesseler,6 K. H. Coale,7 J. J. Cullen,8 H. J. W. de Baar,9 M. Follows,5 M. Harvey,3 C. Lancelot,10 M. Levasseur,11 N. P. J. Owens,12 R. Pollard,13 R. B. Rivkin,14 J. Sarmiento,15 V. Schoemann,10 V. Smetacek,16 S. Takeda,17 A. Tsuda,18 S. Turner,2 A. J. Watson2 Since the mid-1980s, our understanding of nutrient limitation of oceanic primary production has radically changed. Mesoscale iron addition experiments (FeAXs) have unequivocally shown that iron supply limits production in one-third of the world ocean, where surface macronutrient concentrations are perennially high. The findings of these 12 FeAXs also reveal that iron supply exerts controls on the dynamics of plankton blooms, which in turn affect the biogeochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen, silicon, and sulfur and ultimately influence the Earth climate system. However, extrapolation of the key results of FeAXs to regional and seasonal scales in some cases is limited because of differing modes of iron supply in FeAXs and in the modern and paleo-oceans. New research directions include quantification of the coupling of oceanic iron and carbon biogeochemistry. 1 National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Centre for Chemical and Physical Oceanography, Department of Chemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 2 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. 3 NIWA, Evans Bay Parade, Kilbirnie, Wellington, New Zealand. 4 Laboratoire d'Oc?anographie et de Biog?ochimie, Campus de Luminy, Case 901, F-16288 Marseille Cedex 09, France. 5 Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. 6 Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA. 7 Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039, USA. 8 Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4J1, Canada. 9 Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, 1790 AB Den Burg, Netherlands. 10 Ecologie des Syst?mes Aquatiques, Universit? Libre de Bruxelles, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium. 11 D?partement de Biologie (Qu?bec-Oc?an), Universit? Laval, Ste-Foy, Qu?bec G1K 7P4, Canada. 12 Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, The Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK. 13 National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK. 14 Ocean Sciences Centre, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland A1C 5S7, Canada. 15 Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton University, Sayre Hall, Forrestal Campus, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. 16 Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany. 17 Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo, Yayoi 1-1-1, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan. 18 Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: pboyd at alkali.otago.ac.nz The work of John Martin (1, 2) sharply focused attention on the role of iron (Fe) in ocean productivity, biogeochemical cycles, and global climate by proposing "that phytoplankton growth in major nutrient-rich waters is limited by iron deficiency" (2). The candidate mechanism of Martin (1, 2) points to the importance of changes, over geological time, in the magnitude of macronutrient uptake by phytoplankton in waters where macronutrient concentrations are perennially high (1). Specifically, Fe supply to the ocean was much higher during glacial maxima than at present (1), and it is estimated that the increase in Fe-induced productivity could have contributed perhaps 30% of the 80-ppm drawdown in atmospheric CO2 observed during glacial maxima by enhancing the ocean's biological pump (3). Early results from shipboard incubations in high nutrient?low chlorophyll (HNLC) waters presented compelling but equivocal evidence that phytoplankton growth was limited by Fe availability (2). After rigorous discussion, a consensus was reached (4) that, because shipboard experiments have artifacts, mesoscale Fe addition experiments (FeAXs) offered the best approach to resolve questions about the role of Fe in ocean productivity, C cycling, and climate. The main objective of FeAXs was to test whether Fe enrichment would increase primary productivity in HNLC waters, but additional questions focused on how Fe enrichment would affect nutrient use and export (1). The era of mesoscale Fe enrichments started with IronEx I, where Fe and the conservative tracer SF6 (5) were added to tropical HNLC surface waters (6). A further 11 FeAXs of similar design (7, 8) in different HNLC regions (Fig. 1) later confirmed the capability to study pelagic ecology and biogeochemical cycling in a discrete water parcel over time and space scales of weeks and kilometers. Complementary approaches include ship-based observations of persistent blooms within HNLC waters (Fig. 1), termed here FeNXs (Fe natural enrichment experiments), that are driven by sustained and localized Fe enrichment (9). Figure 1 Fig. 1. Annual surface mixed-layer nitrate concentrations in units of ?mol liter?1 (48), with approximate site locations of FeAXs (white crosses), FeNXs (red crosses), and a joint Fe and P enrichment study of the subtropical LNLC Atlantic Ocean (FeeP; green cross). FeAXs shown are SEEDS I and II (northwest Pacific; same site but symbols are offset), SERIES (northeast Pacific), IronEX I and II (equatorial Pacific; IronEX II is to the left), EisenEx and EIFEX (Atlantic polar waters; EIFEX is directly south of Africa), SOIREE (polar waters south of Australia), SOFEX-S (polar waters south of New Zealand), SOFEX-N (subpolar waters south of New Zealand), and SAGE (subpolar waters nearest to New Zealand). FeNX sites shown are the Galapagos Plume (equatorial Pacific), Antarctic Polar Front (polar Atlantic waters), and the Crozet and Kerguelen plateaus (Indian sector of Southern Ocean; Crozet is to the left of Kerguelen). For the geographical positions of the FeAXs, see (8). FeeP investigated whether N-fixing phytoplankton are simultaneously limited by Fe and P; see Table 1. [View Larger Version of this Image (71K GIF file)] Common Findings in FeAXs FeAXs have each used a common framework (7) that enables comparison of their biogeochemical signatures (Table 1 and tables S1 to S3). The results of FeAXs have substantially increased our understanding of ecological and biogeochemical dynamics and their interrelationships, and many findings are consistent with theory-based predictions of ecosystem dynamics. For example, they have shown that phytoplankton grow faster in warmer open-ocean waters (table S2), as predicted by algal physiological relationships (10), and that blooms across a range of FeAX sites display an inverse relationship between chlorophyll concentration and mixed-layer depth (Table 1), as forecast by theoretical relationships between light penetration and mixed-layer depth (8, 11, 12). More specifically, FeAXs have verified that Fe enrichment enhances primary production from polar to tropical HNLC waters (Table 1) and confirmed that Fe supply has a fundamental role in photosynthesis (photosynthetic competence, table S1), diatom sinking, Fe uptake rates (13), and other physiological processes. FeAXs have demonstrated reduced silica requirements of diatoms when relieved of Fe stress (14), confirming results from bottle experiments (15). Table 1. The main findings from the 12 FeAXs (in chronological order from left to right) conducted between 1993 and 2005 [for additional details, see (8)]. See tables S1 to S3 for further details of initial conditions, ecosystem structure, and biogeochemical responses. Light climate, defined as the mean irradiance available to phytoplankton in the mixed layer, was calculated according to I = I0[1 ? exp(?Kez)]/Kez, where I is mean mixed-layer irradiance (PAR), I0 is the subsurface PAR, Ke is the vertical light attenuation coefficient (m?1), and z is the depth of the upper mixed layer. Dilution rate is the mean growth rate of the SF6-labeled patch over the duration of each FeAX. Each property is expressed volumetrically but can readily be converted to a column integral by using the data on mixed-layer depth (MLD). Terms prefixed with a delta such as {Delta}DIC denote maximum minus initial concentrations; nc, no significant change (relative to the surrounding HNLC waters); blank cells indicate that no data are currently available. The ratio of maximum to minimum primary production is based on column integrals. Property IronEX I (6) IronEX II (30) SOIREE (49) EisenEx (56) SEEDS I (57) SOFEX-S (54, 58) SOFEX-N (58) EIFEX (46) SERIES (17) SEEDS II (59) SAGE (59) FeeP (59) Fe added (kg) 450 450 1750 2350 350 1300 1700 2820 490 480 1100 1840 Temperature (?C) 23 25 2 3 to 4 11 -1 5 4 to 5 13 9 to 12 11.8 21 Season Fall Summer Summer Spring Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer Fall Spring Light climate (?mol quanta m-2 s-1) 254 (max) to 230 (min) 216 to 108 59 to 33 82 to 40 178 to 39 103 to 62 125 to 74 173 to 73 59 to 52 Dilution rate (day-1) 0.27 0.18 0.07 0.04 to 0.43 0.05 0.08 0.1 0.07 to 0.16 0.4 Chlorophyll, t = 0 (mg m-3) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.04 Chlorophyll, maximum (mg m-3) 0.6 3.3 2.3 2.8 23.0 2.5 2.4 3.0 5.5 2.4 1.3 0.07 MLD (m) 35 40* 65* 80* 13 35 45 100 30* 30 70* 30* Bloom phase (duration, days) Evolving (5) subducted Decline (17) Evolving (13) Evolving (21) Evolving (10) Evolving (28) Evolving (27) subducted Partial decline, evolving (37) Decline (25) Evolving (25) No bloom (17) No bloom (7) {delta}DIC (mmol m-3) 6 26 17 14 58 21 13 36 nc <1 {delta}DMS (?mol m-3) 0.8 1.8 2.9 1.3, then to 0{dagger} nc nc Increased 8.5, then to -5.7{dagger} nc nc nc Dominant phytoplankton Mixed Diatom Diatom Diatom Diatom Diatom Mixed Diatom Diatom Mixed Mixed Cyanobacteria Prochlorococcus Export nc increase nc nc nc Increase Increase? Increase Increase nc nc Mesozooplankton stocks Increase{ddagger} Increase nc nc nc nc nc Increase Increase Increase nc nc Primary production (max/min ratio) 4 6 9 4 4 6 10 2 10 2 1.7 * Changes in MLD were observed during the study; the maximum MLD is shown (for initial MLD, see table S1). {dagger} An initial increase in DMS concentration followed by a decline by the end of the study. {ddagger} Based on anecdotal evidence. ? Increased export was mainly associated with a subduction event. These mesoscale experiments have provided detailed time-series observations, within a tracer-labeled parcel of water [i.e., a Lagrangian framework (7)], of open-ocean blooms from initiation through evolution and decline (Table 1). Data collection within a Lagrangian framework gives unparalleled insights into bloom dynamics and clarifies how the interplay of factors such as initial conditions (table S1) and loss processes defines properties such as bloom magnitude, which exhibits a factor of 10 range in chlorophyll concentrations between FeAXs (Table 1). The broad suite of measurements and their high temporal resolution in FeAXs will be a useful tool to better interpret the less highly resolved observations available for naturally occurring blooms [e.g., the Antarctic Environment and Southern Ocean Process Study (AESOPS) (16)]. Furthermore, the high-resolution data sets have enabled the establishment of a mechanistic understanding, in some FeAXs, of the evolution, termination, and decline phases of blooms (17) (Table 1). The durations of these bloom phases provide an estimate of the lag time between the accumulation of phytoplankton C and its subsequent export (17); such an estimate has proved elusive in previous studies (18). This experimental approach has presented a platform to examine in detail the interactions of top-down and bottom-up control?outlined in the ecumenical Fe hypothesis (19)?on phytoplankton community structure. For example, stocks of all phytoplankton groups increased initially upon Fe enrichment, but only the diatoms bloomed (Table 1) by escaping grazing pressure. Thus, unlike bottle incubations, FeAXs offer a holistic approach to studying the entire pelagic food web. This enables assessment of the interplay of ecological processes and the resultant biogeochemical signals, such as Fe-mediated increases in haptophyte abundances (table S2) and consequent faunistic shifts within the microzooplankton (20) (table S2) that lead to changes in dimethyl sulfoniopropionate (DMSP) (20) and dimethyl sulfide (DMS) concentrations (20) (Table 1), respectively. These changes in DMS concentration demonstrate that climate-reactive biogenic gases?in addition to CO2?must be considered to obtain the cumulative effect of Fe enrichment on climate. The scale of FeAXs, and in particular their use of the SF6 tracer, enabled the construction of pelagic biogeochemical budgets for C (17) and Fe (21) under high-Fe conditions. FeAXs have permitted the study of whether speciation controls Fe bioavailability (22), the mechanisms behind changes in the production of Fe-binding ligands (FeBLs) in response to enhanced Fe (table S3), and other aspects of Fe chemistry. The SF6 tracer has also helped demonstrate that the underlying physics at FeAX sites alters the bloom biogeochemical signature both by diluting phytoplankton stocks (Table 1) and by increasing the macronutrient inventory of the patch (table S3). Such patch dilution may result in experimental artifacts including arrested bloom development (23), which leads to reduced macronutrient uptake. Together, the wide range of experimental conditions and resulting breadth of bloom signatures evident from FeAXs (Table 1 and tables S1 to S3) provide an essential data resource to improve existing ecological and biogeochemical models and to develop new ones. For example, a new model of DMS dynamics developed during Subarctic Ecosystem Response to Iron Enrichment Study (SERIES) provides a better understanding of how the complex interplay of physical, photochemical, and biological processes affects the temporal evolution of mixed-layer DMS concentrations (24). Scaling Up the Results from FeAXs A key issue to be addressed is how natural or anthropogenic variability in Fe supply affects ocean biogeochemistry and global climate (25). FeAXs are relatively short-term experiments specifically designed to test whether Fe supply limits primary production in HNLC waters, and therefore they can address this issue only by extrapolation. Here, we consider whether findings from FeAXs can successfully be scaled up temporally (seasonal to geological) and spatially (regional to global). Four issues, addressed below, are central to tests of the validity of such extrapolation. Macronutrient Uptake The degree of Fe-mediated algal uptake of the mixed-layer macronutrient inventory will determine bloom longevity (17) and influence the magnitude of C sequestration (1, 3). FeAXs, on a time scale of weeks, have exhibited a wide range of nutrient uptake (table S3), with depletion of >0.75 and >0.6 of the mixed-layer silicate and nitrate inventory, respectively, in several cases (table S2). Polar FeAXs, although of longer duration (Table 1), have resulted in <0.3 of the macronutrient inventory being used, although inventories at polar FeAX sites are greater than in other HNLC regions (table S2). Fe-mediated diatom blooms in both FeAXs (table S2) and natural conditions (16, 26) can deplete silicate but not nitrate, which has led to bloom decline. SERIES suggests that both Fe supply and diatom species succession, as a result of decreasing silicate concentrations, set the silicate:nitrate uptake stoichiometry (17). Thus, although longer-term Fe enrichment (months) may result in uptake of a greater proportion of the macronutrient inventory, it is difficult to scale up the findings of FeAXs without information on the long-term stability of phytoplankton community structure, such as diatom species succession (17). Mediation of bloom decline via macronutrient depletion means that grazer control of phytoplankton stocks is less likely on the shorter time scales typical of FeAXs. This may also apply in some cases to the Last Glacial Maximum, as abundant diatom resting spores from Southern Ocean sediment cores indicate substantial export from diatom blooms in the Atlantic sector triggered by nutrient exhaustion rather than grazer control (27). Thus, FeAXs may mimic naturally occurring blooms that are transient (weeks) and are terminated by rapid nutrient depletion with consequently little change in the grazer community (17). Bloom Time Scales and Food Web Dynamics FeAX blooms may be subject to zooplankton grazing (Table 1), which would result in less efficient downward export of algal C (20) and an increase in pelagic Fe recycling (28). However, the generation times for grazers range from days (microzooplankton) to months (macrozooplankton), whereas FeAX blooms evolve over 2 to 3 weeks (Table 1). Increased microzooplankton and, in some cases, mesozooplankton abundances (Table 1 and table S2) and subsequent alteration of food web dynamics were evident during FeAX blooms (table S2). If FeAXs were of longer duration, would stocks of large zooplankton increase with sustained Fe-elevated productivity? If so, how would they influence the bloom signature? Heavy grazing pressure, exerted by macrozooplankton, occurs in some upwelling regions (29) where a continuous nutrient supply (months) maintains a high-productivity system. Recent FeNXs, at sites with sustained nutrient supply (9), will reveal whether such an adaptive grazer response occurs during long-term blooms within HNLC waters, and hence whether upscaling the results of FeAXs to sustained naturally occurring blooms (months) is valid. If such an adaptive grazer response is observed, the potential long-term biogeochemical feedbacks of grazer-mediated Fe recycling and reduced export efficiency of algal C should be explored via modeling simulations. Modes of Iron Supply Initial attempts to relate the Fe supply during FeAXs with that in the modern or paleo-ocean (30) were hampered by relatively poor understanding of Fe biogeochemistry. Since the mid-1990s, our understanding has advanced considerably through better estimates of the solubility (31) and upper ocean residence time of aerosol Fe (32), improved regional coverage of dissolved Fe (DFe) concentrations (33), and greater insight into the key role of FeBL in maintaining Fe in the upper ocean (34). Although measuring DFe remains challenging, many technical issues have now been addressed (35). Our improved understanding is reflected in better models of dust depositional fluxes (25), oceanic DFe distributions (36), and the impact of higher Fe supply to the paleo-ocean (14), providing a more realistic picture of Fe supply to HNLC waters both now and in the geological past (Fig. 2). Figure 2 Fig. 2. A comparison for Southern Ocean waters of mechanisms responsible for perturbations in Fe supply. Numbers in each panel: 1) Fe*, the relative magnitude of Fe supply relative to macronutrient supply (36); 2) the mode of Fe supply; 3) the time scale over which surface waters receive increased Fe supply; and 4) the length scales of Fe supply events. (A) Satellite image of a purposeful in situ Southern Ocean FeAX [SOIREE (49)]. (B) An FeNX near Crozet within the HNLC Southern Ocean, where naturally occurring blooms are evident from remote sensing (9). (C) An atmospheric dust deposition event (dust units are g m?2 year?1) in the modern Southern Ocean [e.g., from Patagonia (25)]. (D) Fe supply to the Southern Ocean during the glacial maxima from direct [i.e., higher dust deposition (1, 39)] and/or indirect [i.e., upwelling of waters with higher Fe concentrations (40)] sources. The magnitude of this supply is unknown; hence, Fe* is expressed as < 0. Fe* is defined as Fe* = [Fe] ? {(Fe/P) algal uptake ratio x [PO43?]} (36). If Fe* > 0, primary production is ultimately macronutrient-limited; if Fe* < 0, production is ultimately Fe-limited. The width of red arrows denotes the relative magnitude of changes in Fe supply; the hatched arrows in (D) denote uncertainties about whether Fe supply in the geological past was episodic or sustained (see text). In (B) to (D), downward- and upward-pointing arrows represent atmospheric and oceanic (upwelling) supply, respectively. Consideration of Fe chemistry for each of these modes of supply is beyond the scope of this review, but see (22). [View Larger Version of this Image (71K GIF file)] A comparison of modes of Fe supply in FeAXs, FeNXs, and naturally occurring perturbations (Fig. 2) reveals a wide range in the magnitude, chemistry, residence time, and spatial and temporal scales of Fe supply. Although the pulsed Fe enrichments during FeAXs are analogous to episodic dust events, the total Fe supplied in FeAXs is much larger, and Fe solubility is greater than from dust deposition [(7); see also (31)]. Also, there is little evidence of blooms (i.e., >1 mg chlorophyll m?3) after episodic dust deposition into both HNLC (37) and low nutrient?low chlorophyll (LNLC) waters (38). During the glacial maxima, increases in Fe supply are evident over a time scale of centuries (1). Aerosol Fe supply to the Southern Ocean during the glacial maxima was higher than at present by a factor of 10 (1, 39). The magnitude of this supply is potentially comparable to that during FeAXs and FeNXs (Fig. 2). However, there are uncertainties about the mode of Fe supply during glacial maxima. Supply was either episodic and localized from dust storms [e.g., Patagonia (39)] and/or sustained and global, being driven by Southern Ocean upwelling and oceanic circulation (40) in conjunction with global dust deposition as the main Fe source (14). A major unknown in the geological past is the fate of Fe incorporated into phytoplankton blooms. Was dust-mediated Fe supply lost to the deep ocean as declining blooms sank [as aggregates (23)], or was it efficiently recycled by biota in the subsurface ocean and subsequently upwelled? Uncertainty over the fate of Fe is highlighted by comparing two modeling studies. They indicate that substantial atmospheric CO2 drawdown resulted from the routes of high dust deposition with no Fe recycling (41) and from lower rates of dust deposition with recycling and subsequent upwelling (14). The pulsed Fe supply in FeAXs may therefore be more relevant to a paleo-ocean with episodic dust supply (weeks) and Fe export to the deep ocean, whereas FeNXs are a better proxy if Fe supply was sustained (months) by upwelling and recycling. Comparison of the results of FeAXs and FeNXs via modeling studies will provide insights into how different modes of Fe supply affect oceanic Fe and C biogeochemistry. Coupled Iron-Carbon Biogeochemistry The degree to which the biogeochemical Fe and C cycles are linked is central to determining the impact of increased Fe supply on atmospheric CO2 drawdown and global climate in the geological past. A key parameter is the efficiency of phytoplankton C fixation per unit DFe [i.e., {delta}(POC formation)/{delta}(Fe supplied), where POC is particulate organic carbon], as the resulting {delta}POC export term will set the atmospheric drawdown efficiency [{delta}(air-sea CO2 exchange)/{delta}(POC exported)]. Also, because Fe supply during the geological past was elevated for centuries (Fig. 2D), it is important to determine the fate of C relative to Fe in the upper ocean over longer time scales: Is Fe retained via remineralization in the water column or exported to the sediments? [i.e., {delta}(DIC remineralized)/{delta}(Fe remineralized) and {delta}(POC exported)/{delta}(PFe exported), where DIC is dissolved inorganic carbon]. There are few published data on Fe/C ratios for particle production, remineralization, or export (Fig. 3). A range of three orders of magnitude in Fe/C molar ratios is evident, which is probably due to the use of different approaches as well as actual differences in C and Fe biogeochemistry. This variability in Fe/C ratios has been ascribed to a number of processes, such as differential remineralization of Fe and C on sinking particles [due to processes including scavenging on Fe (36, 42)], which results in increased PFe/POC ratios with depth (Fig. 3). Also, phytoplankton in high-Fe surface waters may take up more Fe per unit of C fixed [i.e., "luxury" Fe uptake (13, 43)], resulting in greater Fe remineralization than C remineralization on sinking particles relative to particles in HNLC waters (33). The available data on PFe/POC ratios indicate that settling particles from natural blooms (northeast Atlantic; Fe/C molar ratio 2.7 x 10?4) and FeAXs (Fe/C molar ratio 3.1 x 10?4 to 2.1 x 10?3) have higher ratios than those in HNLC waters (Fig. 3). During FeAXs, much of the Fe added is rapidly lost via precipitation and patch dilution (21); hence, Fe/C ratios from FeAXs will be overestimated by a factor of more than 2 (Fig. 3). Moreover, the time scales of FeAXs do not permit the fate of Fe (recycled or exported) initially added to the mixed layer to be assessed (44), and hence the ultimate efficiency of (Fe added):(C sequestered to depth) cannot be determined. Thus, upscaling the Fe:C stoichiometry from FeAXs to greater spatial and temporal scales is not currently recommended. Figure 3 Fig. 3. Summary of published Fe/C molar ratios (on a log scale) from (A) low-Fe HNLC waters and (B) high-Fe waters and FeAXs (FeAXs denoted by hatched bars). Ratios were obtained from a range of sources: mixed-layer phytoplankton (green), suspended biogenic particles (red), sinking biogenic particles (brown), and remineralization of particles inferred from dissolved constituents (blue). Symbols in (A): A, Southern Ocean (50); B, subantarctic (42); C, subarctic Pacific (51, 52); D, northeast Pacific (1); E, the low-Fe North Atlantic (43); ML, surface mixed-layer samples; *, biogenic Fe only; &, lithogenic and biogenic Fe. Symbols in (B): F, a ratio from an Fe-replete algal culture (53); G, SERIES (17); H, SOFEX-S (54); I, the northeast Atlantic (51); J, the high-Fe North Atlantic (33). The ratios were derived from a wide range of approaches including algal lab cultures (53), sediment traps (42), vertical nutrient profiles in HNLC waters (1), and particle regeneration from apparent oxygen use versus DFe (33, 43). Assessing the bioavailability of Fe (22) is a confounding factor in estimating Fe:C ratios, over and above the effect of patch dilution in FeAXs on the fate of the added Fe. The Fe/C ratios derived from FeAXs in (B) are (Fe added):(C exported) and assume that the Fe term is the total amount of Fe added, which may overestimate this ratio by 100% or more (21, 55). [View Larger Version of this Image (17K GIF file)] The Future: Key Questions and Approaches Key findings from FeAXs offer insights for modelers, although a limited number of these findings can be extrapolated directly to regional and seasonal scales for Fe enrichment. Such limited extrapolation relates to limitations in the FeAX design (7) and to uncertainties in our understanding of Fe biogeochemistry in the paleo-ocean. Key questions center around the issues of macronutrient use, ecosystem responses, modes of Fe supply, and coupling of Fe-C biogeochemical cycles, for which we propose three hypotheses. First, with respect to macronutrient uptake and ecosystem dynamics, we hypothesize that in addition to magnitude, the stoichiometry of macronutrient and Fe supply to HNLC surface waters is equally critical in determining whether blooms are transient (weeks) or sustained (months). This in turn will dictate the planktonic community that develops and the subsequent biogeochemical balance between Fe recycling within, and export from, the surface mixed layer. Second, although the mode of Fe supply is important (Fig. 2), the factors that influence the availability of the Fe supplied to the biota are critical. We hypothesize that the magnitude of the Fe available to the biota will be determined by the mode of Fe supply and in particular by the subsequent mobilization and retention of this Fe by upper-ocean processes. For aeolian Fe supply, these processes include aerosol Fe mixed-layer residence time (32), photochemistry, FeBL concentrations (25) and their joint impact on aerosol dissolution, and the ability of bacteria to access lithogenic PFe (42). The bioavailability of Fe supplied from upwelling may be influenced by processes such as photochemistry or by the concentration and binding strength of the upwelled Fe and FeBL relative to those in the surface mixed layer. Regarding the issue of Fe and C biogeochemistry, we offer a third hypothesis: that the relative importance of the processes that set particulate Fe/C ratios and their controlling factors will vary both regionally and seasonally. These processes, which will dictate Fe and C export, include algal Fe uptake and the differential rates of particle remineralization for Fe and C in surface and subsurface waters. Each of these, in turn, will be determined by a range of factors such as DFe concentration [algal Fe uptake (43)], food web structure and grazing activity [remineralization rates (45)], and particle properties and transformations including sinking rate or scavenging [export efficiency (36, 42)]. Testing these hypotheses will require both specific and multistranded approaches that link FeAXs, FeNXs, and biogeochemical Fe and C studies in a range of locales. Three are advocated: 1. Modeling studies to apply our improved understanding of Fe biogeochemistry in the modern ocean to the geological past. Model simulations should also capitalize on the complementary approaches offered by FeAXs and FeNXs into how pulsed versus sustained Fe supply affects ecosystem dynamics and biogeochemistry. 2. Improved experimental designs to overcome the limitations of FeAXs, such as smaller and more frequent Fe doses, greater patch length scale (>>10 km), and additional measurements that provide insight into the impact of Fe enrichment on climate (e.g., biogenic gases) or Fe cycling (e.g., fate of Fe). Detailed comparison of the biogeochemistry of differing FeNXs would help us understand better the influence of a range of Fe:macronutrient stoichiometries on bloom dynamics and C biogeochemistry. Such experiments require application of both existing [aircraft, laser imaging detection and ranging (46)] and new [gliders, sensor arrays (47)] technologies, and should be linked to regional circulation models with embedded biogeochemistry. The utility of shipboard Fe enrichments to study algal physiology in detail should not be overlooked (15). 3. Biogeochemical studies to jointly measure key properties in the Fe and C cycles, such as Fe/C ratios and FeBL concentrations associated with particle transformations, will require specific investigation of end members?HNLC, LNLC, and high-Fe waters in coastal and offshore waters. These, in conjunction with the improved experimental designs described above, will provide insights into temporal and spatial controls on Fe/C ratios in both high- and low-Fe regimes. References and Notes * 1. J. H. Martin, Paleoceanography 5, 1 (1990). * 2. J. H. Martin, R. M. Gordon, S. E. Fitzwater, Limnol. Oceanogr. 36, 1793 (1991). [ISI] * 3. D. M. Sigman, E. A. Boyle, Nature 407, 859 (2000). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline] * 4. S. W. Chisholm, F. M. M. Morel, Limnol. Oceanogr. 36, 1507 (1991). [ISI] * 5. A. Watson, P. Liss, R. Duce, Limnol. Oceanogr. 36, 1960 (1991). [ISI] * 6. J. H. Martin et al., Nature 371, 123 (1994). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 7. The design of FeAXs has involved single or multiple infusion (time scale of days) of iron, as a salt dissolved in acidified seawater, and concurrent addition(s) of SF6 to the surface mixed layer of initial areal extent (50 to 225 km2). The use of the SF6 conservative tracer was essential to track this mesoscale region of iron-enriched surface ocean and avoids the uncertainty imposed by fixed-point sampling in Eulerian studies. This design (in particular the amount of Fe added) has changed little between FeAXs because of the need to ensure a large measurable biogeochemical signal during a relatively short period in a logistically challenging and dynamic environment. * 8. H. J. W. de Baar et al., J. Geophys. Res. 110, C09S16 (2005) and references therein. [CrossRef] * 9. FeNXs have examined naturally occurring blooms within HNLC waters near the Galapagos [see (4)], within the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (8), and recently near the Southern Ocean islands Crozet and Kerguelen, where the studies Crozex (Crozet Circulation, Iron Fertilization and Export Production Experiment) and KEOPS (Kerguelen: Etude Compar?e de l'Oc?an et du Plateau en Surface et Subsurface) took place from November 2004 to January 2005 and during January and February 2005, respectively (8). * 10. K. Banse, Limnol. Oceanogr. 36, 1886 (1991). [ISI] * 11. G. B. Mitchell, E. A. Brody, O. Holm-Hansen, C. McClain, J. Bishop, Limnol. Oceanogr. 36, 1662 (1991). [ISI] * 12. The model in (11) was based on an adaptation of Sverdrup's critical depth theory (i.e., the relationship between the respective depths of the mixed and euphotic zones) for Southern Ocean waters. * 13. M. T. Maldonado et al., Limnol. Oceanogr. 46, 1802 (2001). [ISI] * 14. A. J. Watson, D. C. E. Bakker, A. J. Ridgewell, P. W. Boyd, C. S. Law, Nature 407, 730 (2000). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline] * 15. D. A. Hutchins, K. W. Bruland, Nature 393, 561 (1998). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 16. W. O. Smith Jr., R. F. Andreson, J. K. Moore, L. A. Codispoti, J. M. Morrison, Deep Sea Res. II 47, 3073 (2000). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 17. P. W. Boyd et al., Limnol. Oceanogr. 50, 1872 (2005). [ISI] * 18. K. O. Buesseler et al., Deep Sea Res. II 50, 579 (2003). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 19. F. M. M. Morel, J. G. Reuter, N. M. Price, Oceanography 4, 56 (1990). * 20. P. W. Boyd, S. Doney, in Ocean Biogeochemistry?The Role of the Ocean Carbon Cycle in Global Change (JGOFS), M. J. R. Fasham, Ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003), pp. 157?187. * 21. A. R. Bowie et al., Deep Sea Res. II 47, 1708 (2001). * 22. M. L. Wells, Mar. Chem. 82, 101 (2003). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 23. P.W. Boyd, G. A. Jackson, A. M. Waite, Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 10.1029/2001GL014210 (2002). [CrossRef] * 24. Y. Le Clainche et al., J. Geophys. Res. 111, C01011 (2005). * 25. T. D. Jickells et al., Science 308, 67 (2005).[Abstract/Free Full Text] * 26. K. Lochte, H. W. Ducklow, M. J. R. Fasham, C. Stienen, Deep Sea Res. II 40, 91 (1993). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 27. A. Abelmann, R. Gersonde, G. Cortese, G. Kuhn, V. Smetacek, Paleoceanography 21, PA1013 (2006). [CrossRef] * 28. D. A. Hutchins, W. X. Wang, N. S. Fisher, Limnol. Oceanogr. 40, 989 (1995). [ISI] * 29. B. W. Frost, Nature 383, 475 (1996). [ISI] * 30. K. H. Coale, Nature 383, 495 (1996). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 31. A. R. Baker, T. D. Jickells, M. Witt, K. L. Linge, Mar. Chem. 98, 43 (2006). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 32. T. D. Jickells, Mar. Chem. 68, 5 (1999). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 33. B. A. Bergquist, E. A. Boyle, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 20, GB1015 (2006). [CrossRef] * 34. J. Wu, E. Boyle, W. Sunda, L.-S. Wen, Science 292, 847 (2001). [CrossRef] * 35. K. Johnson et al., Eos 86 (Ocean Sci. Meet. Suppl.), abstract OS11N-02 (2006). * 36. P. Parekh, M. J. Follows, E. A. Boyle, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 19, GB2020 (2005). [CrossRef] * 37. J. K. B. Bishop, R. E. Davis, J. T. Sherman, Science 298, 817 (2003). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 38. K. S. Johnson et al., Global Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 10.1029/2002GB002004 (2003). [CrossRef] * 39. E. W. Wolff et al., Nature 440, 10.1038/nature04614 (2006). [CrossRef] * 40. N. Lefevre, A. J. Watson, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 727 (1999). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 41. L. Bopp, K. E. Kohfeld, C. Le Qu?r?, O. Aumont, Paleoceanography 18, 10.1029/2002PA000810 (2003). [CrossRef] * 42. R. D. Frew et al., Global Biogeochem. Cycles 20, 10.1029/2005GB002558 (2006). [CrossRef] * 43. W. G. Sunda, Mar. Chem. 57, 169 (1997). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 44. A. Gnanadesikan, J. L. Sarmiento, R. D. Slater, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 10.1029/2002GB001940 (2003). [CrossRef] * 45. R. Strzepek et al., Global Biogeochem. Cycles 20, 10.1029/2005GB002490 (2006). [CrossRef] * 46. L. J. Hoffmann, I. Peeken, K. Lochte, P. Assmy, M. Veldhuis, Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 1217 (2006). [ISI] * 47. J. Bell, J. Betts, E. Boyle, Deep Sea Res. I 49, 2103 (2002). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 48. H. E. Garcia, R. A. Locarnini, T. P. Boyer, J. I. Antonov, in World Ocean Atlas 2005, vol. 4, Nutrients, S. Levitus, Ed. (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2006). * 49. P. W. Boyd et al., Nature 407, 695 (2000). [CrossRef] [ISI] [Medline] * 50. B. S. Twining, S. B. Baines, N. S. Fisher, Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 2115 (2004). [ISI] * 51. J. H. Martin, S. E. Fitzwater, R. M. Gordon, C. N. Hunter, S. J. Tanner, Deep Sea Res. II 40, 115 (1993). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 52. P. W. Boyd et al., Deep Sea Res. II 46, 2761 (1999). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 53. W. G. Sunda, S. A. Huntsman, Mar. Chem. 50, 189 (1995). [CrossRef] [ISI] * 54. K. O. Buesseler, J. E. Andrews, S. M. Pike, M. A. Charette, Science 304, 414 (2004) doi: 10.1126/science.1086895.[Abstract/Free Full Text] * 55. P. Boyd, unpublished data from SERIES. * 56. F. Gervais, U. Riebesell, M. Y. Gorbunov, Limnol. Oceanogr. 47, 1324 (2002). [ISI] * 57. S. Takeda, A. Tsuda, Prog. Oceanogr. 64, 95 (2004). [ISI] * 58. K. H. Coale et al., Science 304, 408 (2004).[Abstract/Free Full Text] * 59. SEEDS II took place in July 2004, SAGE in March?April 2004, and FeeP in May 2004. For more details, contact tsuda at ori.u-tokyo.ac.japan, m.harvey at niwa.co.nz, and njpo at pml.ac.uk, respectively. * 60. The workshop "A Synthesis of Mesoscale Iron-Enrichments," held in Wellington in November 2005, was supported by the Surface Ocean?Lower Atmosphere Study, NSF, NIWA, the New Zealand Royal Society, the UK Royal Society, Belgian Federal Science Policy, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank E. McKay and K. Richardson for the graphics, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and insights. This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of R.B. Supporting Online Material www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5812/612/DC1 Tables S1 to S3 References -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 11 13:59:20 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:59:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Multi Homing? In-Reply-To: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070211135919.GD21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 06:11:20AM -0700, Brent Allsop wrote: > Do any of you guys "Multi Home" your home network internet connection? Not yet, but others do. I might at some point, if prices come down. Right now I'm planning to buy 20/50 MBit FTC once it's de-bundled from telephony and TVoIP. > I currently have Comcast cable as my primary connection, but would like to > include a Quest DSL modem redundant connection to increase reliability and > bandwidth. (Comcast has been down for a week or so twice last year.) > > I would also like to upgrade to gigabit in my home so I can transfer live > video and stuff. Done that a few years ago. When you do, make sure your switch and your NICs both can do jumbo frames (most recent switches do, but I would check to make sure), and configure them. You probably want a switch without a fan, too. > One possibility I see is getting a ?dual wan? capable router that does ?load > balancing?. There seems to be lots of these out there, but the only one > that supports gigabit on the LAN side seems to be NetGear's FVS124G: I would stay away from Netgear routers. Switches can be fine, I run many of those. You don't actually need the router to be able to handle GBit speeds, unless you want to connect your home with >100 MBit line. Just connect your router to the GBit switch, which will autoconfigure the ports to 10/100/1000 according to their capabilities. > http://www.netgear.com/Products/VPNandSSL/WiredVPNFirewallRouters/FVS124G.as > px > > But from the reviews this sounds like it might be a very unreliable box? > > Some other friends of mine are saying I should just configure my Linux box > to have several NIC cards and have it handle the WAN connections and NAT > services... I've made very good experiences with a WRAP box running pfSense. I wouldn't recommend using a PC for that purpose, because a 150 W device will set you back some $150/year for electricity alone, if ran 24/7/365. I would just pick up a multiple-NIC embedded capable of runing http://pfsense.org/ (m0n0wall is also ok, but you won't get multihomed/failover with that yet), and follow the documentation. You might want to look into VIA EPIA C7 boards, some of which have multi-NIC expansion boards with GBit (but with crappy Realteks). It *will* be hairy. You might or might not need a Level 2 switch which can define VLANs. > Are these the only two possibilities? Which of these would be the best for > someone that is not a professional network administrator? And which would If you're not a professional network administrator yet, you might want to hire one, or to become one by the time you're done. Just a fair warning. > run reliably without having the router crash all the time?? > > Any ideas, tips, or personal success stories would be greatly appreciated? Here's one: From: Michael Vrettos To: support at pfsense.com Hi there, We've have a pfsense setup with vlans to engage 6 adsl lines + lan + wifi to a 3 nics Server (2 x 10/100 + 1 Gbit) To accomplish a similar setup you need a vlan capable switch. We did that with a netgear smart switch http://www.netgear.com/Products/Switches/SmartSwitches/FS726T.aspx Once you become familiar with your vlan switch you must setup your desired vlans. In our case we only using the switch to connect our adsl lines with 1 of the server nics (10/100). We connect the other 10/100 nic with a wifi AP and the remaining gigabit nic with our LAN switches. We don't use the 10/100 nic directly in pfsense.. we rather created vlans based on that nic.. vlan1 to vlan6; vlan1 --> wan, vlan2 --> opt1, ..vlan6 --> opt5 (we renamed opt1 to wan2, etc.). IMPORTANT: USE SAME VLAN NAMES in your switch!.. meaning that if you create "vlan1" in pfsense then you need to do the same in the switch (switch "vlan1"). Our netgear setup was straight forward.. we dedicated switch ports 1-6 to the adsl modem/routers and port 24 for the pfsense nic, creating vlan1 = switch port1 --> switch port24, ... vlan6 = switch port6 --> switch port24. Then we connected adsl modem1 to switch port1 and so on. Every modem has a lan side ip of type 192.168.x0.1/255.255.255.0 So modem 1 has ip 192.168.20.1 and vlan1 interface in pfsense (dedicated to wan) has ip 192.168.20.10 with GW 192.168.20.1 (adsl modem's ip).. modem 2 has ip 192.168.30.1 and vlan2 interface in pfsense (dedicated to opt1) has ip 192.168.30.10 with GW 192.168.30.1 (adsl modem's 2 ip)..and so on. After that you need to setup pfsense for load balancing if you like and/or port forwarding + some other things..(ftp helper, squid, etc.). In any case, you are right about lack of detailed howtos!! Regards Michael Vrettos Email - mvrettos at net-landia.net Spain - +34 626544403 Hellas - +30 6978557240 My status Get Skype and call me for free. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 15:29:30 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:29:30 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <20070211134431.GC21677@leitl.org> References: <53910.86.130.31.99.1171200319.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070211134431.GC21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: What about national lighting neutral taxes? I.e. tax incandescent light bulbs and use the revenues to subsidize fluorescents or white LEDs? If structured right, it ought to be able to create a completely level playing field with respect to light costs. (We don't care what kind of light bulb you buy -- but the cost per lumen is going to be the same. One could of course bias the tax to encourage the shift to the most efficient (in terms of CO2 emissions/lumen). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 15:39:46 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:39:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold fusion research Message-ID: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> John K Clark wrote: > "Benjamin Goertzel" > > >> This control experiment has been run many times, however. >> > > Thank you, you have provided a perfect example of why cold fusion "research" > is so incredibly crappy, and ESP "research" is even worse; the idea that a > control experiment is a luxury and not a necessity. But then, if you want to > find something that doesn't exist it's best not to be too skilled in the art > of experimentation. > As discussed in the CF literature, there are many different kinds of control experiments you can run in this setting. A control experiment using light water is only one of the options. For instance, you can run a control experiment using a dead palladium cathode, which is what some experimenters did. As Julian Schwinger pointed out, a light water control experiment is a bit suspicious because the underlying mechanisms of CF are not known. Schwinger suspected that, if his theoretical understanding was correct, a small amount of excess heat might correctly be observed in a light water experiment because "Through the natural presence of D20 in ordinary water, such control experiments might produce an otherwise puzzling amount of heat." So, arguably, a control with a dead palladium cathode is just as meaningful, or more so. However, when light water controls have been run, the results have been as expected. I don't see why you keep bringing ESP into the argument, by the way. We could argue about that if you want but it would be a quite separate argument and my attitude would be pretty different. I am open to the possibility of ESP and related phenomena being real, but my (not too deep) study of the data has not strongly convinced me of this, unlike the case with my study of the data regarding cold fusion. But of course cold fusion is a far simpler thing, and the amount of overt BS out there about CF is a lot smaller. With ESP, if there is any "signal" there in the literature, it's a lot harder to detect in the presence of all the noise. I believe Damien has studied this topic more carefully than I have and would be curious for his findings; but, anyway, this has nothing to do with cold fusion. One thing you should be clear about is that CF really does not violate known physical law (to use an expression I don't like, since they really are not laws, just observed regularities); as Schwinger, Hagelstein and others have argued, it is apparently a manifestation of known physics operating in a regime that was very little studied before. It's not as though there is some analytical theory of the production of heat in the atomic lattice inside palladium under heavy deuterium loading, and the CF results violate this analytical theory. Rather, this is a complex physical situation for which the laws of physics yield no analytical solution by any known means. CF violates nuclear physicists' hand-wavy analyses of the physics of these lattices, but, so what? It is not obvious to me that ESP would violate known physical law, but reconciling it with known physics would certainly be a hell of a lot trickier. > >> A number of his works in the area are available on that site. >> > > Yes, on that site. Not in that respected peer reviewed journal, but on that > site. > McKubre has published many journal papers in other areas during the last 17 years. He says he gave up on submitting his CF papers because dealing with editors and referees was such a pain due to their irrational bias against the area. Sounds like a reasonable story to me. I myself have been more avid about publishing my bioinformatics work than my AGI work, in part because dealing with editors and referees regarding AGI is more of a pain. >> From what I can tell he is a good researcher >> > > And how did you determine that he was a good researcher, from ESP? Or did it > come to you in a dream? I estimated that because he has published papers in good journals on other topics; and because he has a leadership position at a well-respected research institute (SRI, formerly part of Stanford). Also his papers appear to be carefully and thoughtfully written, unlike some other stuff in the field. Unfortunately, one consequence of the marginalization of CF by the physics establishment has been that it has attracted a certain number of nut-job or semi-nut-job "researchers", who do low-quality work; my feeling is that McKubre is not one of these. > It's not peer reviewed, there is no way to know if > he did anything at all except sit at a terminal and upload a ASCII sequence > onto a website. Well, for that matter, peer review is not a protection against fraud either, as has been repeatedly shown by experience. As McKubre himself has pointed out, there is really no way to know whether a complex experimental result like this is correct or not except by situating oneself in the lab in question for several months and very carefully monitoring all procedures. I have not done that, so I have to make do with secondary indications... > > I don't know what to say, it's like something out of Monty Python. I can > just picture John Cleese having a transcendental experience when he sees a > magician at a child's birthday party pull a quarter out of a kid's ear. Have > a little skepticism people! > > I don't understand the "transcendental experience" joke, sorry. I have not (yet!) had any transcendental experiences regarding CF. It is not my area of research, and is not particularly important to me. I have simply read the available information and come to the opinion that the phenomenon most likely does exist. Schwinger, McKubre, Fleischmann, and many of the other researchers in the area seem credible to me. Time will tell which one of us is correct. If you knew me better you would know that I'm actually a highly skeptical individual. It is not the case that I'm credulous and accept any information I read that looks exciting. I understand the dangers of wishful thinking. However, I also understand the dangers of overly conservative thinking -- of rejecting new information because it doesn't fit one's preconceived theoretical models; and of believing something is true just because the official societal "owners of the truth" say it is. -- Ben From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 11 16:50:25 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:50:25 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold fusion research In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:39:46AM -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > As discussed in the CF literature, there are many different kinds of Not just as discussed in the CF literature, but as in common electrochemistry. Just because you're into cold fusion it doesn't absolve you from getting your experiments right. The very opposite, in fact. Because your claims are so outrageous you've got to get your ass armor-plated, because everyone will attempt to shoot you down. And you better not be apologetic about it, because reality doesn't care about blame assignment. > control experiments you can run in this setting. There are many controls, but if you've missed the light water control your experiment is crap. You blew it. You need to throw it out your window, and start from scratch. I'm not sure I'm making myself understood, perhaps I should be starting using more CAPS or !!!!!!!1s. Take it from an experimental scientist, and a bad one at that. > A control experiment using light water is only one of the options. No, no, no, no. You need to do as many controls as possible, starting with the obvious (light water), and then progress to increasingly outlandish, if you have resources for that left. Hitherto I avoided saying it, but you don't sound like you're experimentalist enough in order to be qualifed to review the experiments. Not just because you're not a electrochemist, or a cold fusion researcher, because you're lacking the basic understanding of how to plan an experiment in natural sciences. The whole apparatus which prevents you from goofing up your results, and catch your mistakes well before you've start analyzing your results. Well before you talk to your peers and then sent up your writeup to a peer reviewed publication. > For instance, you can run a control experiment using a dead palladium > cathode, which is what some experimenters did. This doesn't address fracture when loading palladium with hydrogen or deuterium (or tritium, but you don't want to do that unless you have to). > As Julian Schwinger pointed out, a light water control experiment is a > bit suspicious because the underlying mechanisms of CF are not known. It is not at all suspicious if you want to rule out dirt effects. Nothing is off-limits, a priori, because you want to find an experiment variation with a negative result. > Schwinger suspected that, if his theoretical understanding was > correct, a small amount of excess heat might correctly be observed in > a light water experiment because If other claims on LENR-CANR are correct it doesn't even matter (much) which electrode material you take. Gold does just fine. Isn't it remarkable? This means it's purely a surface effect. And other results say it works in plasma, too. In fact, if you believe all the claims on LENR-CANR -- and there is no reason to be picky here -- it's a giant effect, easily reproducible, works across a large class of systems, and produces radiation and fusion products, sometimes in considerable amounts (but not enough to kill the experimenters by radiation sickness, which is what one would expect from kW/cm^3 power densities). > "Through the natural presence of D20 in ordinary water, such control Natural abundance of deuterium is 1:6500 (154 ppm), and it loads about the same into palladium, and of course you could easily buy or prepare (if you recombine hydrogen/oxygen from a light-water electrolytic cells you'd get a considerably D-depleted water) further D-depleted light water for controls. Did they do that elementary thing? In every single experiment involving heavy water? > experiments might produce an otherwise puzzling amount of heat." > > So, arguably, a control with a dead palladium cathode is just as > meaningful, or more so. Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. You're unqualified to review CF experiments, if you honestly believe that. > However, when light water controls have been run, the results have > been as expected. Meaning, what? I recall that some experiments on LENR-CANR claimed light water works just as well as heavy water. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. > One thing you should be clear about is that CF really does not violate > known physical law (to use an expression I don't like, since they So it's fusion, but not fusion as we know it? There's a world of a difference between mass defect in chemical reactions, and nuclear reactions, and if you fuse two nuclei, then the recoil won't be conveniently and magickaly be absorbed by the lattice, the reaction results are so energetic they don't see the lattice at all. They will plow across it, and in fact emerge in the open space, where they're not difficult to detect (and be it by loss of hair, teeth, and bloody stool, which is what one should expect from power densities of a nuclear reactor's core). > really are not laws, just observed regularities); as Schwinger, > Hagelstein and others have argued, it is apparently a manifestation of > known physics operating in a regime that was very little studied > before. It's not as though there is some analytical theory of the > production of heat in the atomic lattice inside palladium under heavy You have no idea how far into hot water you're putting yourself with that statement. It's like expecting your program would run completely differently if you painted your computer case a different color. Because, you know, it's all complicated and mysterious, and we've never ran that particular program on that particular computer, and have painted the case with the particular color. And did we accont for the moon phase, and is the room feng shui right? Puh-leeze. > deuterium loading, and the CF results violate this analytical theory. > Rather, this is a complex physical situation for which the laws of > physics yield no analytical solution by any known means. CF violates > nuclear physicists' hand-wavy analyses of the physics of these > lattices, but, so what? So E=mc^2 is incorrect, but, so what? And white is black, and my car runs on coppertops, and a "form of fusion" (you haven't missed that the hydrino guy was present and cited at those conferences?) > It is not obvious to me that ESP would violate known physical law, but > reconciling it with known physics would certainly be a hell of a lot > trickier. I'm glad you went into computer science. > McKubre has published many journal papers in other areas during the > last 17 years. He says he gave up on submitting his CF papers because > dealing with editors and referees was such a pain due to their > irrational bias against the area. Sounds like a reasonable story to > me. It doesn't to me. If I had a real effect, I would have no trouble whatsoever in getting other people to notice and to reproduce, which would allow me to publish it anywhere. > Unfortunately, one consequence of the marginalization of CF by the > physics establishment has been that it has attracted a certain number You mean the CF people are too slacky to do a little self policing? If I can see a paper is crap, why can't they? If that would trim down the amount of papers down to 5-10%, wouldn't it be a good thing? > Well, for that matter, peer review is not a protection against fraud > either, as has been repeatedly shown by experience. It is the only way to find fraud, and in practice it works very well. If you fail to do peer review you're *guaranteed* to have fraud. And if you tolerate fraud among your peers, I really really wonder about what's wrong with your head. > As McKubre himself has pointed out, there is really no way to know > whether a complex experimental result like this is correct or not > except by situating oneself in the lab in question for several months > and very carefully monitoring all procedures. Months is good, but I bet a few days would be enough. > I have not done that, so I have to make do with secondary indications... When I was interested about whether a particular thing might work (cryonics), I've spent two years of my life, and came away with a conditional "yes, it might, provided...". > I don't understand the "transcendental experience" joke, sorry. I > have not (yet!) had any transcendental experiences regarding CF. It > is not my area of research, and is not particularly important to me. > I have simply read the available information and come to the opinion > that the phenomenon most likely does exist. Schwinger, McKubre, > Fleischmann, and many of the other researchers in the area seem > credible to me. > > Time will tell which one of us is correct. I think the time already did. You're not. > If you knew me better you would know that I'm actually a highly > skeptical individual. It is not the case that I'm credulous and > accept any information I read that looks exciting. I understand the > dangers of wishful thinking. However, I also understand the dangers > of overly conservative thinking -- of rejecting new information > because it doesn't fit one's preconceived theoretical models; and of > believing something is true just because the official societal "owners > of the truth" say it is. If the bulk of science would operate under such conditions we never could get anywhere done. FWIW, there are enough individuals which would investigate about anything, and in fact this is what has happened with CF. All that work so far hasn't produced anything. I very much doubt there will be any CF die-hards at all 10-15 years from now. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 11 17:19:29 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:19:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211110907.03c88f78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:08 AM 2/11/2007 +0000, you wrote: >On 2/10/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> >wrote: >>I am really annoyed at scientology distracting me at this time. In the >>process of writing a novel set a hundred years in the future, I had to >>come up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That led to >>notes so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > >I'm not so sure there is the "energy" crisis that people typically think >there is. The U.S., Europe, Russia, China, and India all have the >technology to go nuclear. Newer reactor designs are safer. Reactors to >breed U or fuel recycling could provide a multi-hundred year source of >non-global warming electricity. snip There is an unrecognized problem with nuclear power. I believe all of you are aware of the North Korean fizzle. The reason for the fizzle is they almost certainly used reactor grade Pu, which has a high percentage of Pu 240. Pu 240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission which causes the bomb to go off in a low grade mode before it is completely assembled. Weapons grade Pu is 90% or better Pu 239. It is made by pushing slugs of U though a reactor fast enough that little of the Pu formed picks up a second neutron. The slugs are then chemically separated to recover the Pu. It's a trade off between grade and production rate. Some years ago it occurred to me that exceptionally high grade Pu 239 could be made by briefly exposing U 238 in solution to neutrons, sorting the Pu with ion exchange and pumping the solution back though the reactor to convert more U 238 to Pu 239. This should generate low cost Pu 239 upwards of 99%. Considering that over a fuel consumption cycle a power reactor generates a number of kg of neutrons, tapping a few percent in this loop would produce a considerable amount of super weapons grade Pu. I never wrote this idea down, considering it one of the thing I wished I had never thought of. But if I can think of it, so can any number of other people. Last weekend while I was in jail I decided this bit of information should not die with me. It will give inspectors an idea of what to look for. Otherwise I mostly agree with your thoughts. Indeed, it might be impossible to make carbon nanotubes good enough and in large enough amounts for a space elevator cable prior to full scale nanotechnology. (Though the iron cycle process needs to be investigated.) But if they can be made at low cost and tens of Gpa strength, then a mechanical powered elevator is possible. (Laser powered climbers are just silly.) The other point of a space elevator is that much access to space (thousands of tons a day) you could put sunshades in the sun/earth L1 location and directly control climate. Incidentally, I agree that in spite of all the problems, vast number of nuclear reactors are the only other large enough non carbon approach. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 11 17:29:36 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:29:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ESP controls In-Reply-To: <005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> <005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> At 01:37 AM 2/11/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > ESP "research" is even worse; the idea that a >control experiment is a luxury and not a necessity. Could you elaborate on that, John? Which psi experiments do you mean that have no controls? Presumably not the bulk of the PEAR REG trials, where the long-established protocol is specifically designed with no optional stopping, and with ternary target conditions (higher than chance, lower than chance, baseline or no effort), and those mutually controlling conditions augmented by calibration runs of the REG while nobody is making any psi attempts. I could list other controls for different protocols, but I'd prefer to learn precisely which experiments you're talking about. Or will you default to your fallback position of "Jahn and the others are probably just inventing their data"? Or Dennett's dynamite rebuttal, which I cited the other day: "You don't think I waste my time actually reading this stuff do you?" Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 11 17:37:08 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:37:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211110907.03c88f78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211110907.03c88f78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070211173708.GH21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:19:29PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > There is an unrecognized problem with nuclear power. I believe all of you > are aware of the North Korean fizzle. The reason for the fizzle is they > almost certainly used reactor grade Pu, which has a high percentage of Pu It's trivial to use briefly irradiated rods before you Purex the plutonium out of it (it's easier to work with, too, since the activity is lower), so I don't think they're that incompetent. > 240. Pu 240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission which causes the bomb > to go off in a low grade mode before it is completely assembled. Weapons > grade Pu is 90% or better Pu 239. It is made by pushing slugs of U though > a reactor fast enough that little of the Pu formed picks up a second > neutron. The slugs are then chemically separated to recover the Pu. It's > a trade off between grade and production rate. Even with reactor-grade Pu you should be getting a bit more than a dirty fizzle. Pressurizing the weapon pit with a few g of tritium shortly before assembly isn't rocket science. > Some years ago it occurred to me that exceptionally high grade Pu 239 could > be made by briefly exposing U 238 in solution to neutrons, sorting the Pu Light water, or heavy water solution? > with ion exchange and pumping the solution back though the reactor to > convert more U 238 to Pu 239. This should generate low cost Pu 239 upwards > of 99%. Considering that over a fuel consumption cycle a power reactor > generates a number of kg of neutrons, tapping a few percent in this loop > would produce a considerable amount of super weapons grade Pu. Sounds elegant. Also, rather straightforward: http://www.springerlink.com/content/3026827616472750/ > The other point of a space elevator is that much access to space (thousands > of tons a day) you could put sunshades in the sun/earth L1 location and > directly control climate. You don't need a space elevator. Linear motors (maglev mass drivers) can easily launch Moon-side fabricated material into Earth orbit (perhaps with aerobraking). If your LEO parasols double as PV arrays tracking Earth-side rectenna arrays by realtime beamforming via phased array the energy problem disappears into thin air. At 1.3 kW/m^2 24/7/365 outside the atmosphere (and still some kW/m^2 at noon) energy is not a problem, PV technology is. > Incidentally, I agree that in spite of all the problems, vast number of > nuclear reactors are the only other large enough non carbon approach. I disagree http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/peakuranium.htm Switching to thorium is a solution in search of a problem: we have methane, coal, biomass, photovoltaics, wind, hydro, geothermal and tidal sources. About 0.6% of Germany's surface (comparison: 12% of it is sealed, about half that actually covered with structures) converted to PV is enough to cover the energy needs (I forgot whether I included industry, I probably did). And that's Germany, where "cities are just a few kilotons apart". The issue is bringing costs down for a better ROI. The crossover solar/fossil is not very far before us, given current trends. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 11 17:57:22 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:57:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Heartfelt Thanks! In-Reply-To: <20070211122617.GA21677@leitl.org> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211122403.03cc2b40@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Please excuse my ignorance of the details of last weekend re the fund raising for my bail and legal expenses. Little problem with not much communication while in jail, and the backlog of list postings and email may be beyond ever catching up with. Natasha of course created the fund in the middle of ExI shutting down and used ExI's good reputation for the campaign. Robert Bradbury, Amara Graps, PJ, Jay, and many, many others were instrumental. If I didn't mention you, it isn't because I don't appreciate your efforts. Don't hesitate to take credit, either here or in private email. Anyway, a major thanks to all of you! Keith Henson PS. I suppose it is to late, but I wish shutting down ExI could be reconsidered. From jonkc at att.net Sun Feb 11 18:06:16 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:06:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004b01c74e07$5a3181c0$59044e0c@MyComputer> "Benjamin Goertzel" > As discussed in the CF literature The word "literature" gives this crap far more class that it deserves. > there are many different kinds of control experiments you can run in this > setting. A control experiment using light water is only one of the > options. You need to run lots and lots of control experiments, but if you want to impress real scientists light water is number one on the hit parade. > For instance, you can run a control experiment using a dead palladium Personally I don't give a hoot in hell if the palladium is alive or dead, but if you want to run that control too then fine. > As Julian Schwinger pointed out [..] Julian Schwinger died of old age 13 years ago, and in all that time the field of cold fusion has not moved a billionth of a nanometer. It has not move a Plank length. > a control with a dead palladium cathode is just as > meaningful, or more so. That is just ridiculous, USE LIGHT WATER! > I don't see why you keep bringing ESP into the argument Because both ESP and cold fusion are sublime examples of junk science. > I am open to the possibility of ESP and related phenomena being real Why am I not surprised? > CF really does not violate known physical law If that's all they were arguing I would not call it bullshit, but they claim to have experimental proof of it, and that is steaming reeking putrid BULLSHIT! > He says he gave up on submitting his CF papers because dealing with > editors and referees was such a pain I understand, setting up a proper experimental setup with all the pesky control experiments and such can be a real pain, easier to just post it on the web. I mean, everybody knows everything on the web is true. > peer review is not a protection against fraud Bullshit. Like everything made by humans it is not perfect but it is pretty damn good. On those rare occasions when they are wrong (caught by other peer reviewed journals I might add) it is a HUGE story. Nobody makes much of a fuss when the National Enquirer is wrong about a statue of Elvis found on Mars. > there is really no way to know whether a complex experimental result like > this is correct or not Then it is not Science. > If you knew me better you would know that I'm actually a highly skeptical > individual. All I know about you is what you have posted to the Extropian list, on that basis I must conclude that the above statement is BULLSHIT. John K Clark From scerir at libero.it Sun Feb 11 17:45:11 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:45:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <006901c74e04$61b8b880$08961f97@archimede> Eugen: Superficially, it's not a bad paper at all. One thing which immediately springs to mind: I don't see a control experiment with light water mentioned anywhere. Also, loading of Pd by hydrogen (or deuterium) produces cracks. I don't see thinning of the electrode and fusing the result by current ruled out anywhere in the paper. # I will ask them, at ENEA, about light water and Joule effects. I hope they are still alive. I think they made these checks, since the experiment began in 1996, and ended in 2002 with that final report (but they wrote many reports before that one). Note that the theoretical excess power (from DD -> 4He) is 10 times larger than the observed excess power. It means that the predicted excess power is radiation going everywhere. It would be easy to detect this ghost radiation taking IR, X, Gamma, or whatever else pictures. (In fact they planned to do that). It seems to me that the gap between the observed excess power and the theoretical excess power is not a minor problem, with cold fusion. s. From jonkc at att.net Sun Feb 11 18:44:44 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:44:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com><20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com><005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > Which psi experiments do you mean that have no controls? I had no particular psi "experiment" in mind, you don't think I waste my time actually reading this stuff do you? No, I was thinking of the thing that induced these people to do their silly little "experiments" in the first place, the anecdotal evidence. You hear all the time about the man who had a premonition that his grandmother will die and she does, but I have heard of a control only once, by Richard Feynman in his book Surely Your Joking. One day when he was in college for no apparent reason he had a very powerful feeling that his grandmother was dead, but it turned out that grandma was doing just fine. > Or will you default to your fallback position of "Jahn and the others > are probably just inventing their data"? I assume all data is made up unless I have reason to think otherwise. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 18:47:27 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:47:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold fusion research In-Reply-To: <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> References: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> Hi, I'm not an experimental scientist but I do have a bunch of experience analyzing very noisy data gathered by experimental scientists, sometimes using bad experimental designs, so I do have some idea of the variety of things that can go wrong. But this has been in the biology domain, not chemistry. BTW my original training was in math, not CS. And, you have not explained to me why you think McKubre (the guy from SRI) did his work incorrectly or sloppily. You have pointed out why some other researchers did not use the kind of controls you think they should have; and you are probably right about the kinds of controls they should have used, but this does not invalidate the results of other researchers such as McKubre who did use the kind of controls that you suggested (light water controls). > Hitherto I avoided saying it, but you don't sound like you're > experimentalist enough in order to be qualifed to review the experiments. Not > just because you're not a electrochemist, or a cold fusion researcher, > because you're lacking the basic understanding of how to plan > an experiment in natural sciences. Sorry, this is just not true. I have participated in experimental design in the biology domain, and I do understand the role of controls in experimentation. One thing I find interesting in this dialogue is the high level of ad hominem attacks involved. Mostly leveled by John Clark, but now you seem to be getting into the game too. Too bad. > In fact, if you believe all the claims > on LENR-CANR -- and there is no reason to be picky here -- Why would you say that? Of course there is reason to be picky: some effects have been reported by a large number of researchers, some apparently quite reliable like McKubre. Others have been reported only by a single researchers whose reputation is not as easy to gather information about. > > >> However, when light water controls have been run, the results have >> been as expected. >> > > Meaning, what? I recall that some experiments on LENR-CANR claimed > light water works just as well as heavy water. So which is it? You > can't have it both ways. > I did not survey all experiments, I read Beaudette's book and some papers by McKubre and a few others who appeared to be reliable. It seemed possible to Schwinger, who knew more physics than you (let alone me), that the phenomenon might work in some circumstances using light water. > > >> One thing you should be clear about is that CF really does not violate >> known physical law (to use an expression I don't like, since they >> > > So it's fusion, but not fusion as we know it? There's a world of > a difference between mass defect in chemical reactions, and nuclear > reactions, and if you fuse two nuclei, then the recoil won't be > conveniently and magickaly be absorbed by the lattice, the reaction > results are so energetic they don't see the lattice at all. > They will plow across it, and in fact emerge in the open space, > where they're not difficult to detect (and be it by loss of hair, > teeth, and bloody stool, which is what one should expect from > power densities of a nuclear reactor's core). > > Sorry but I will accept the intuitions of Julian Schwinger, and Haseltine (an MIT faculty) over yours. I am not a physicist, and my knowledge of physics is pretty much entirely from studying mathematical and theoretical physics. However, you are making highly confident statements that contradict what Schwinger, Haseltine and others with more track record in physics than you have stated. So I don't see why I should accept your theoretical intuitions over theirs, sorry... >> really are not laws, just observed regularities); as Schwinger, >> Hagelstein and others have argued, it is apparently a manifestation of >> known physics operating in a regime that was very little studied >> before. It's not as though there is some analytical theory of the >> production of heat in the atomic lattice inside palladium under heavy >> > > You have no idea how far into hot water you're putting yourself with > that statement. It's like expecting your program would run completely > differently if you painted your computer case a different color. Because, > you know, it's all complicated and mysterious, and we've never ran > that particular program on that particular computer, and have painted > the case with the particular color. And did we accont for the moon phase, > and is the room feng shui right? Puh-leeze. > IMO, that is not a very good metaphor. Julian Schwinger disagreed with you, along with a number of other good physicists. Whereas you will not find a single Nobel prizewinner nor MIT or SRI scientist who will argue that a program will run differently if you painted the case a different color. > >> deuterium loading, and the CF results violate this analytical theory. >> Rather, this is a complex physical situation for which the laws of >> physics yield no analytical solution by any known means. CF violates >> nuclear physicists' hand-wavy analyses of the physics of these >> lattices, but, so what? >> > > So E=mc^2 is incorrect, but, so what? And white is black, I really don't think E=mc^2 would need to be revised to account for CF, sorry. > It is the only way to find fraud, and in practice it works very well. > If you fail to do peer review you're *guaranteed* to have fraud. And > if you tolerate fraud among your peers, I really really wonder about > what's wrong with your head. > I was tempted to say "I wonder what is wrong with YOUR head, and John Clark's, that you find it necessary to make ad hominem attacks against people who disagree with you!!!" But I don't really wonder. It's an age-old phenomenon with well-known explanations in evolutionary psychology. >> >> Time will tell which one of us is correct. >> > > I think the time already did. You're not. > > If you think your definitive know-it-all tone makes you in any way convincing to me, you're wrong. Rather, the opposite. It tells me that you are sufficiently closed-minded and emotional that your opinions are probably not worth listening to, except in areas where you have a really extreme amount of personal experience and expertise, which this obviously is not. >> If you knew me better you would know that I'm actually a highly >> skeptical individual. It is not the case that I'm credulous and >> accept any information I read that looks exciting. I understand the >> dangers of wishful thinking. However, I also understand the dangers >> of overly conservative thinking -- of rejecting new information >> because it doesn't fit one's preconceived theoretical models; and of >> believing something is true just because the official societal "owners >> of the truth" say it is. >> > > If the bulk of science would operate under such conditions we never > could get anywhere done. FWIW, there are enough individuals which would > investigate about anything, and in fact this is what has happened with > CF. All that work so far hasn't produced anything. Well but that's not just true that it hasn't produced anything... Anyway, I am now sick of discussing this with you, just as I got sick of discussing it with John Clark. Your arguments were certainly at a much higher level than Clark's; but, in the end you provided no convincing refutation of the phenomenon, only a critical analysis of a small subset of the experiments (and, notably, NOT the ones I pointed out to you as apparently most convincing, which did involve the kinds of controls you suggested). My biggest lesson from this dialogue is the strong emotion that it elicited from both John Clark and yourself. Wow. I think the closed-minded, emotionally-hostile attitude you two display is every bit as damaging to science as the opposite emotional/cognitive error, in which people blindly accept whatever bullshit they want to believe. I do have a lot of respect for the overall scientific process, which allows progress to keep going in spite of closed-mindedness, hostility, gullibility, wishful-thinking, and all the other human weaknesses. The scientific process is not optimal but it ultimately does work, which is why I predict that within 20 years from now CF will be mainstream science. -- Ben From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Feb 11 18:37:24 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:37:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211110907.03c88f78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200702111856.l1BIuDfG028772@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and > EP] ... > > Some years ago it occurred to me that exceptionally high grade Pu 239 > could be made by briefly exposing U 238 in solution to neutrons... Keith Keith I may be misunderstanding the process you propose. I see no advantage in creating Pu239 by having the uranium atoms in solution, but I can imagine couple of big disadvantages. My understanding is for neutron capture by a uranium atom, the neutron must have a certain narrow range of momentum with respect to the uranium nucleus. When the target uranium is in the solid form its momentum is zero, so the trick to facilitating neutron capture is in moderating the momentum of the neutrons. Uranium in solution introduces an additional unknown: the momentum of the uranium atom. Secondly, it appears to me one would greatly reduce the neutron capture probability by uranium atoms in solution because of the greatly reduced actual number of uranium atoms. Here's something on which I hope you will be able to educate me: if a uranium atom is to form Pu239, the formation path is a single neutron capture by U238 with two subsequent beta decays? Is that how that works? If so, are the two beta decays necessitated by the kinetic energy exchange in the neutron capture? If so, and you had uranium 238 in solution, it looks to me like you would form along with your Pu239 a bunch more neptunium 239 and protactinium 239. Would not the wider spread of kinetic energy exchange between the U238 and the neutron cause a higher rate of single beta decay and triple beta decay after neutron capture? So what is the advantage to having the U238 in solution? If for whatever reason, this method really does produce more Pu239 (instead of way less which is what I would expect), seems like we could do the same trick even better with liquid U238, because of higher density of uranium nucleii. spike From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 18:56:15 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:56:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <004b01c74e07$5a3181c0$59044e0c@MyComputer> References: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <004b01c74e07$5a3181c0$59044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <45CF66CF.9050301@goertzel.org> > >> there is really no way to know whether a complex experimental result like >> this is correct or not >> > > Then it is not Science. > > John Clark You have quoted me out of context in the above. The full statement I made was: " As McKubre himself has pointed out, there is really no way to know whether a complex experimental result like this is correct or not except by situating oneself in the lab in question for several months and very carefully monitoring all procedures. " You omitted the end of the sentence that you quoted, in a way that appears specifically engineered to distort the meaning of my original sentence. Please refrain from quoting segments of my posts in ways that make it look like I was making statements substantially different from the statements I was actually making! -- Ben Goertzel From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 19:00:06 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:00:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com><20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com><005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> <006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <45CF67B6.2010904@goertzel.org> John K Clark wrote: > "Damien Broderick" > > >> Which psi experiments do you mean >> > that have no controls? > > I had no particular psi "experiment" in mind, you don't think I waste my > time actually reading this stuff do you? A truly skeptical attitude, IMO, would involve not making strong assertions (positive OR negative) about things you have not carefully researched yourself. Knee-jerk negative reactions not grounded in research are no more intelligent, scientific or laudable than knee-jerk positive ones. -- Ben > No, I was thinking of the thing > that induced these people to do their silly little "experiments" in the > first place, the anecdotal evidence. You hear all the time about the man > who had a premonition that his grandmother will die and she does, but I have > heard of a control only once, by Richard Feynman in his book Surely Your > Joking. One day when he was in college for no apparent reason he had a very > powerful feeling that his grandmother was dead, but it turned out that > grandma was doing just fine. > > >> Or will you default to your fallback position of "Jahn and the others >> are probably just inventing their data"? >> > > I assume all data is made up unless I have reason to think otherwise. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 11 19:03:46 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:03:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ESP Controls In-Reply-To: <006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> <005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> <006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070211130148.02318940@satx.rr.com> At 01:44 PM 2/11/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > > Which psi experiments do you mean > > that have no controls? > >I had no particular psi "experiment" in mind, you don't think I waste my >time actually reading this stuff do you? Why am I not surprised? **GAME OVER!!** Damien Broderick From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 19:07:31 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:07:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ESP controls In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> <005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45CF6973.7090601@goertzel.org> Damien is correct, there have been many psi experiments with adequate controls. I have not studied the topic carefully, but based on the little reading I've done, my main worry with psi experiments is whether there's a powerful "dataset selection" effect. I.e., if someone does a psi experiment and doesn't get positive results, they won't tell anyone and won't publish the results -- they'll just think their experiment wasn't good enough for some reason. So what we're seeing in publications is just a subset of the POSITIVE results obtained by various researchers, and we don't know how large a subset this is over the overall set of results obtained. I assume that statisticians studying psi experiments have attempted to account for this phenomenon, but I don't know exactly how they have done so.... It does seem difficult to address. I really doubt that Jahn and all the other psi researchers showing positive psi results have fabricated their data. There are just too many researchers with otherwise trustworthy appearance, showing positive results. It is possible of course that every positive psi result is an intentional fabrication, but this seems not that likely to me. If psi does not exist, the more likely explanation for the various positive results obtained, I would say, is the dataset-selection effect I mentioned above, or some other peculiarity of statistics and scientific protocol. The level of BS in the psi literature is far higher than in the CF literature, making it much harder to penetrate to even a superficial level without expending a large amount of effort. -- Ben Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:37 AM 2/11/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > > >> ESP "research" is even worse; the idea that a >> control experiment is a luxury and not a necessity. >> > > Could you elaborate on that, John? Which psi experiments do you mean > that have no controls? > > Presumably not the bulk of the PEAR REG trials, where the > long-established protocol is specifically designed with no optional > stopping, and with ternary target conditions (higher than chance, > lower than chance, baseline or no effort), and those mutually > controlling conditions augmented by calibration runs of the REG while > nobody is making any psi attempts. > > I could list other controls for different protocols, but I'd prefer > to learn precisely which experiments you're talking about. Or will > you default to your fallback position of "Jahn and the others are > probably just inventing their data"? Or Dennett's dynamite rebuttal, > which I cited the other day: "You don't think I waste my time > actually reading this stuff do you?" > > Damien Broderick > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From pharos at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 19:22:48 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:22:48 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <45CF67B6.2010904@goertzel.org> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> <005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> <006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> <45CF67B6.2010904@goertzel.org> Message-ID: On 2/11/07, Ben Goertzel wrote: > A truly skeptical attitude, IMO, would involve not making strong > assertions (positive OR negative) about things you have not carefully > researched yourself. > > Knee-jerk negative reactions not grounded in research are no more > intelligent, scientific or laudable than knee-jerk positive ones. > While in an ideal world this would be true, life is too short. This is the same 'logic' that says fraudsters should be allowed to market whatever junk they feel might con money out of gullible folks. It would therefore be up to every individual to spend significant time investigating absolutely every product they might wish to buy. Again, life is too short. And, of course many (most?) people do not have the knowledge or training to properly investigate stuff. Especially stuff where the truth is deliberately concealed. In our modern society we have to rely on other people doing the investigation. That's what government labs, the police and other agencies are supposed to do. And peer-reviewed journals and referees provide this function for science. BillK From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Feb 11 19:38:25 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:38:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ESP controls Message-ID: <27802324.1735691171222706062.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Princeton ESP Lab to Close | | from the don't-think-bad-thoughts dept. | | posted by Zonk on Saturday February 10, @04:25 (Education) | | http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/10/0820225 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ [0]Nico M writes " The New York Times reports on the imminent closure of one of the most controversial research units at an ivy league School. The [1]Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory is due to close, but not because of pressure from the outside. Lab founder Robert G. Jahn has declared, in the article, that they've essentially collected all the data they're going to. The laboratory has conducted studies on extrasensory perception and telekinesis from its cramped quarters in the basement of the university's engineering building since 1979. Its equipment is aging, its finances dwindling. Jahn points the finger at detractors as well: 'If people don't believe us after all the results we've produced, then they never will.'" Discuss this story at: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=07/02/10/0820225 Links: 0. mailto:micronicospass at hotmail.com 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html PJ >Damien is correct, there have been many psi experiments with adequate >controls. > >I have not studied the topic carefully, but based on the little reading >I've done, my main worry with psi experiments is whether there's a >powerful "dataset selection" effect. > >I.e., if someone does a psi experiment and doesn't get positive results, >they won't tell anyone and won't publish the results -- they'll just >think their experiment wasn't good enough for some reason. So what >we're seeing in publications is just a subset of the POSITIVE results >obtained by various researchers, and we don't know how large a subset >this is over the overall set of results obtained. > >I assume that statisticians studying psi experiments have attempted to >account for this phenomenon, but I don't know exactly how they have done >so.... It does seem difficult to address. > >I really doubt that Jahn and all the other psi researchers showing >positive psi results have fabricated their data. There are just too >many researchers with otherwise trustworthy appearance, showing positive >results. It is possible of course that every positive psi result is an >intentional fabrication, but this seems not that likely to me. If psi >does not exist, the more likely explanation for the various positive >results obtained, I would say, is the dataset-selection effect I >mentioned above, or some other peculiarity of statistics and scientific >protocol. > >The level of BS in the psi literature is far higher than in the CF >literature, making it much harder to penetrate to even a superficial >level without expending a large amount of effort. > >-- Ben From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Feb 11 19:33:44 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:33:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times: Virtual War, Real Healing - Skip Rizzo Message-ID: <5047847.1735291171222424168.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> This is my friend, Skip Rizzo's work, at USC here in LA. Great guy. Great work. Covered him in my empathy essay for the WTA book. PJ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-virtual9feb09,1,6241224.story?ctrack=1&cset=true COLUMN ONE Virtual war, real healing By Larry Gordon Times Staff Writer February 9, 2007 San Diego ? NONE of this is really happening, but the experience is almost overwhelming in "virtual Iraq." The Humvee plows along a desert road. The engine rumbles underfoot and Blackhawk choppers whirl overhead. A sandstorm blows in, and insurgents pop up and start to shoot with sickening blasts that shatter the windshield. Is that the smell of burning rubber? Those sensations of war are being fed into a special helmet, goggles and earphones. They are conjured by a computerized virtual reality developed in part by gaming engineers and psychologists at USC and being tested, among other places, at the Naval Medical Center in San Diego. The goal is to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. Universities, private firms and the federal government are pouring millions of dollars into creating and testing such virtual Iraqs to help ease the psychological disorder that, according to a 2004 study by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, affects more than 15% of combat personnel returning from Iraq. Sufferers may have anxiety, nightmares, flashbacks, emotional numbness, extreme jumpiness and physical pain. Unable to return to combat or civilian jobs, some receive disability payments for years or for life. With a therapist's supervision, the virtual Iraqs are designed to vividly, yet safely, allow those veterans to confront war experiences in ways that go beyond traditional counseling and drug therapy. The computer programs, even with the somewhat cartoonish digital depictions of combat, seek to relieve trauma by repeatedly revisiting its origins and not letting fear fester. Lt. Cmdr. Robert McLay, a Navy psychiatrist who is a research leader on virtual-reality treatment of PTSD in San Diego, explained that more customary forms of exposure therapy for trauma may require visits to actual locations, such as returning a rape victim to the scene of the assault. "You don't want to send someone who is traumatized back to Iraq," he said. "This allows us to bring someone back, but within the situation here." And, he said, some PTSD sufferers are unable or unwilling to recall things in counseling sessions without stimuli, such as the digital images of a combat hospital, a recorded Islamic prayer melody or the smell of cordite explosives misted into a psychologist's office. In 2005, the Office of Naval Research awarded $4 million to support tests of such virtual-reality treatments in San Diego and at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii. The funds also bolster related work by USC's Institute for Creative Technologies in Marina del Rey, the University of Washington and allied high-tech firms. Cmdr. Russell Shilling, the Office of Naval Research's program officer for medical science and technology, said virtual Iraqs might be especially useful to remove the stigma of psychological therapy for a younger generation who grew up playing video games. Though it is too early to make judgments about the trial runs, early results "look very promising," Shilling said. The National Institute of Mental Health is funding a $2-million study at Emory University School of Medicine that uses a virtual Iraq along with a drug, D-cycloserine, that has been shown to reduce the fear of heights. "The potential impact for men and women with stress adjustment problems is really substantial" and the possible impact on medical research "is extraordinarily important," said Farris Tuma, chief of the national institute's traumatic stress disorders program. But Tuma cautioned that no treatment is a panacea. "We want to be careful not to oversell it as a simple fix for very complex conditions," he said. AT the sprawling Navy hospital near San Diego's Balboa Park, researchers are testing two somewhat different systems: one for combat fighters who saw no relief from other therapies, the other for medics and support staff traumatized by war. So far, McLay said, nine people have completed the cycle of 10 sessions. The goal by next year is have 150 treated at San Diego and Camp Pendleton, including some also suffering from concussions and crushed limbs. Marines put on a helmet and goggles that allow them to be visually and aurally engulfed, often for 45 minutes. They stand or sit over a small platform that can vibrate. They work a joystick that allows them to walk or ride at various speeds. They can change directions on computerized streets and alleys by twisting their heads and bodies. In one biofeedback version, their respiration, heart rate and palm sweat are monitored. Psychologists such as Karen Perlman sit at computers and help tailor the experience to the patients, conversing with them throughout. The treatment usually starts with a digital scene and no violence. But in subsequent sessions, the therapists ? after giving warning ? heighten the intensity and specifics of the re-created event. They can make the platform shake more violently. They can set off simulated explosions and gunfire and add fog, smoke and night-vision effects, along with the smells of body odor and Iraqi spices. "Habituation occurs when they repeat their story over and over again," Perlman said. "They start to learn they can tolerate their distress, they can work through it." If all of that proves to be too much, the session can be interrupted for a discussion or be made less vivid. Researchers say they want to ensure the experience feels real enough to trigger emotions without being overly bloody. Though some patients have temporarily removed the goggles or asked for a break, no one has completely freaked out, according to McLay. "We are prepared for that experience," he said. "The great thing about virtual reality is that you can turn it off." Citing privacy issues, authorities did not allow interviews with patients. But a reporter was permitted to talk to a Navy medic who recently served in Iraq and who, though not a PTSD patient, tried one system. "It's pretty real. The vibration and the sights and sounds and everything were pretty darn close. I was waiting for shrapnel overhead," said Eugene Gochicoa, a Navy corpsman 1st class. "It did kind of take me back to when I was back there ? except I knew I was safe here." FOR a reporter, a test run at USC's lab had a disorienting double effect: the fun of being inside an astonishingly lively video game but also the dread of being trapped in a dangerous situation that other people controlled. The scenarios were changed to give me a sampling: I drove a Humvee through a smoky field until insurgents' bullets cracked the windshield. I had a growing sense of paranoia. I heard my own footsteps as I walked quickly down a street past suspicious characters. Hearing prayer calls, I entered a beautifully decorated mosque, where I suddenly encountered a gunman. Again, the story line switched and I heard and felt helicopters nearby. I ran past burning cars and a wounded man holding his head. Am I the next to be shot? Engineers want to make systems more portable. And redesigns may make the simulated urban streets messier and add smells ? such as roasting lamb. One of the systems grew out of the computerized war training program known as Full Spectrum Command, which was designed, with Army funding, at USC's Institute for Creative Technologies. The institute also produces Hollywood special effects and multimedia systems for healthcare and education. The Army software later was adapted for the popular Full Spectrum Warrior video game and then morphed again, in collaboration with Virtually Better Inc. in Georgia, for the therapy. "From training to toy to treatment" is the way the sequence was described by USC professor Albert "Skip" Rizzo, one of its adapters, along with computer engineer Jarrell Pair. Rizzo, a psychologist who works in gerontology and directs the institute's virtual-reality psychology lab, previously used other VR programs to aid Alzheimer's and brain-injury patients and youngsters with attention deficits. VR, as it is often called, is being tried around the country for addictions and phobias, such as fear of flying. Weill Cornell Medical College in New York is testing a version for people who witnessed or responded to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. Because there are no clear battle lines and it is difficult to identify enemies, the Iraq war is a petri dish for the constant stress that can produce PTSD, Rizzo said. "We are sending teenagers 19 years old to fight wars, and we owe them whatever can be done, using the latest technology, to look after those people after the fact," he said. The federal government has a financial, as well as humanitarian, interest in trying to speed treatment and reduce long-term disability payments. But even if some otherwise healthy malingerers use the technology to bolster phony trauma claims, Rizzo said, he can live with that "as long as I know that the people who really need the treatment are getting it." A more primitive virtual-reality therapy ? depicting a jungle and Vietnam-era helicopters ? produced some significant improvement for Vietnam War veterans, researchers at the VA Medical Center in Atlanta reported in 2001. According to study leader Barbara Rothbaum, director of Emory University's trauma and anxiety recovery program, the experience was so effective that some of those veterans said they saw tanks and Viet Cong, even though none were presented on-screen. Patients, she said, "will fill in with their own memories." larry.gordon at latimes.com From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 19:45:12 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:45:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> <005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> <006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> <45CF67B6.2010904@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <45CF7248.4000503@goertzel.org> Well, I make my own decisions regarding what to spend my time on, of course. I have chosen to work on AI, not on psi research, for example. But, because I have not put huge time and thought into evaluating psi research, I refrain from coming to a definitive conclusion on it. -- Ben G BillK wrote: > On 2/11/07, Ben Goertzel wrote: > >> A truly skeptical attitude, IMO, would involve not making strong >> assertions (positive OR negative) about things you have not carefully >> researched yourself. >> >> Knee-jerk negative reactions not grounded in research are no more >> intelligent, scientific or laudable than knee-jerk positive ones. >> >> > > > While in an ideal world this would be true, life is too short. > > This is the same 'logic' that says fraudsters should be allowed to > market whatever junk they feel might con money out of gullible folks. > It would therefore be up to every individual to spend significant time > investigating absolutely every product they might wish to buy. > > Again, life is too short. > > And, of course many (most?) people do not have the knowledge or > training to properly investigate stuff. Especially stuff where the > truth is deliberately concealed. > > In our modern society we have to rely on other people doing the > investigation. That's what government labs, the police and other > agencies are supposed to do. > > And peer-reviewed journals and referees provide this function for science. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Feb 11 19:59:14 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:59:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ESP controls In-Reply-To: <45CF6973.7090601@goertzel.org> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> <005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> <45CF6973.7090601@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070211133921.026a0950@satx.rr.com> At 02:07 PM 2/11/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: >my main worry with psi experiments is whether there's a >powerful "dataset selection" effect. > >I.e., if someone does a psi experiment and doesn't get positive results, >they won't tell anyone and won't publish the results This is the very well-known and well-characterized "file drawer" effect. >I assume that statisticians studying psi experiments have attempted to >account for this phenomenon, but I don't know exactly how they have done >so.... Yes, of course they have. The topic remains somewhat controversial among statisticians, but Prof. Jessica Utts mentions it at, for random example, http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp.html < Following Rosenthal (1984), the authors calculated the "fail-safe N" indicating the number of unreported studies that would have to be sitting in file drawers in order to negate the significant effect. They found N = 14, 268, or a ratio of 46 unreported studies for each one reported. > Given how time-intensive these trials are, and how few labs are doing them, such a "cover up" is extremely unlikely. >The level of BS in the psi literature is far higher than in the CF >literature I seriously doubt that. One has to use some elementary common sense in segregating serious work (done at Princeton and Edinburgh universities, for example) from the idiots, telephone "psychics" and psychotic bloggers and from exploratory work later improved after review and criticism. Once the obvious anecdotal and new age woowoo has been filtered out or simply ignored as irrelevant, the bulk of the work I've read has been increasingly solid over the last 20 or 30 years. I anticipate publications in the heavy duty science journals on the topic of "precognitive presentiment" within the next year or two--the data looks good, and replicability is getting better all the time (within the bounds of a stochastic effect). One of the features I like about presentiment is that significant responses *in advance of stimuli* can and has been found in old instrumented response data prepared by neuroscientists such as Damasio for entirely different purposes (as one would expect if the phenomenon is real). Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 11 20:04:21 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:04:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold fusion research In-Reply-To: <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> References: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:47:27PM -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > I'm not an experimental scientist but I do have a bunch of experience > analyzing very noisy data gathered by experimental scientists, sometimes > using bad experimental designs, so I do have some idea of the variety of > things that can go wrong. But this has been in the biology domain, not > chemistry. Analyzing data is not the same as planning and conducting experiments. For whatever reasons you're unsuitable as an experimenter, at least given what you've said so far. This doesn't mean you're unreformable (people can and do learn), just I wouldn't trust any experiment you yourself would conduct. > BTW my original training was in math, not CS. Neither are experimental sciences. Believe me, there's a world of difference practical science and theory. (Btw, I scoff at software "engineers", too. There's a lot of inflation in who feels qualified to call themselves engineers these days. But that's strictly aside). > And, you have not explained to me why you think McKubre (the guy from > SRI) did his work incorrectly or sloppily. You have pointed out why I will when I get down to it, assuming I can say anything about the experimental setup. Notice that I'm a lousy experimental scientist, not a physisicst neither an electrochemist, and just because the experiment planning and reported execution appear good it doesn't mean the data is not freely invented. If the paper looks good, it's time to get to replicate the results. If an experiment is difficult to replicate, then one has to visit the claimant's lab, and absorb enough expertise there in order to replicate data on-site, and then elsewhere. This is how science works. Deviate from that route by one inch, and there be dragons. > some other researchers did not use the kind of controls you think they > should have; and you are probably right about the kinds of controls they > should have used, but this does not invalidate the results of other > researchers such as McKubre who did use the kind of controls that you > suggested (light water controls). Do you now understand why I said why LENR-CANR are blowing their chances, because they're not instituting peer review, however informal? Why are they so stupid? > Sorry, this is just not true. I have participated in experimental > design in the biology domain, and I do understand the role of controls > in experimentation. I do not deny this, but for whatever reason you're missing basic common sense of what constitutes a simple experiment in electrochemistry. It's not personal. I can't do formal math worth shit, I barely survived quantum chemistry. Many great theorists were completely lost in the laboratory. > One thing I find interesting in this dialogue is the high level of ad > hominem attacks involved. Mostly leveled by John Clark, but now you > seem to be getting into the game too. Too bad. It's not ad hominem if it's actually correct. To recap, you have shown a history of being extremely gullible, yet at the same time extremely naive in what constitutes experimentation 101. Now you're claiming people are attacking you, instead of the actual bad science you represent. You know what? It's another earmark of bad science. The big bad establishment is out to get us. We would publish, if only the major journals would accept it, but they're biased, so they don't. Nobody would replicate our (frankly, trivial; I've personally seen a person destroying 8 months worth of work by one careless gesture, calling physicists who do calorimetry on single particle absorption incapable of evaluating an electrochemists' (very low animal on the totem pole, smart people don't go into electrochemistry) frankly takes the cake) experiments. Etc. It's too bad you're now claiming protection by ad hominem. I expected better from you. > > In fact, if you believe all the claims > > on LENR-CANR -- and there is no reason to be picky here -- > Why would you say that? Of course there is reason to be picky: some Because science doesn't work by cherry-picking results which are opportune for your side. If you want to bring in reputation, why does LENR-CANR treat everyone the same way? WHY ARE THEY SO STUPID? > effects have been reported by a large number of researchers, some > apparently quite reliable like McKubre. Others have been reported only > by a single researchers whose reputation is not as easy to gather > information about. Allright, I'll look at the URL you posted, and if I can't find anything fishy it's being to upgraded "let's replicate it" status. > I did not survey all experiments, I read Beaudette's book and some > papers by McKubre and a few others who appeared to be reliable. > > It seemed possible to Schwinger, who knew more physics than you (let In case you haven't noticed, science (and myself) are completely immune to appeals from authority. > alone me), that the phenomenon might work in some circumstances using > light water. And gold, and titanium, and in plasma, and aqueous solutions. Rather versatile phenomenon, that. Makes one wonder what makes it so difficult to replicate, if even finding a negative outcome is so complicated. So elusive, and so ubiquitous. > Sorry but I will accept the intuitions of Julian Schwinger, and > Haseltine (an MIT faculty) over yours. It doesn't take any intuition, just tell me how a crystal lattice is supposed to contain MeV particles (as opposed to Moessbauer's mere keV). This is not intution, this is undergrad physics (and even chemistry) material. Tell me. If it's not fusion, how does it do element transmutations? He-4 is claimed to be observed. You can't have it both ways. Either there is transmutation, and mass defect, and high-energy products, or there is not. (That assumes the experiments are not freely invented). > I am not a physicist, and my knowledge of physics is pretty much > entirely from studying mathematical and theoretical physics. I'm not a physicist either, I just had physical chemistry and what little I know from literature. From what little I know CF stinks. > However, you are making highly confident statements that contradict what > Schwinger, Haseltine and others with more track record in physics than SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK BY APPEALS TO AUTHORITY. It's not my intuition trumps yours, because, I've got more Ph.D.'s in from of my name, nyah-nyah. > you have stated. So I don't see why I should accept your theoretical > intuitions over theirs, sorry... Yes, science is a belief system. Not. I'm not sure there's any need follow up this thread. You just want to believe, and keep an open mind, regardless of experimental results and the whole body of science it claims to topple. > IMO, that is not a very good metaphor. Julian Schwinger disagreed with > you, along with a number > of other good physicists. Whereas you will not find a single Nobel How do you know they're good physicists? How can they explain that a metal lattice -- just metal *surface*, a 2D system, in fact, is capable of absorbing fusion products recoil, and prevent gamma emission? Ask this any physicist you come across on the campus. Even undergrads. > >> deuterium loading, and the CF results violate this analytical theory. > >> Rather, this is a complex physical situation for which the laws of > >> physics yield no analytical solution by any known means. CF violates > >> nuclear physicists' hand-wavy analyses of the physics of these > >> lattices, but, so what? > >> > > > > So E=mc^2 is incorrect, but, so what? And white is black, > > I really don't think E=mc^2 would need to be revised to account for CF, > sorry. But that's what you claimed. If you have element transmutation, you have mass defect, which is freed as E=mc^2. That's a lot of energy. If you have fusion, you need to get nuclei past the Coulomb barrier, which is why all observed fusion processes, whether Farnsworth fusors, laser fusion or Tokamak or (controversial) sonoluminiscence fusion, or plain thermonuclear nuke are based on getting the nuclei fast enough at enough encounter rate so they can penetrate the barrier close enough to fuse so you can detect the products and now it's happening (not really a problem with a nuke, agreed). > I was tempted to say "I wonder what is wrong with YOUR head, and John > Clark's, that you find it necessary > to make ad hominem attacks against people who disagree with you!!!" > > But I don't really wonder. It's an age-old phenomenon with well-known > explanations in evolutionary psychology. I am utterly demolished. My scientific arguments are completely trumped by resorting to monkey psychology, of all things (and nevermind that you're resorting to the cheap ad hominem when confronted with crititique against your facts, not your person). This hurts s o much. > If you think your definitive know-it-all tone makes you in any way > convincing to me, you're wrong. Rather, the opposite. It tells me that If you think I care about what you believe, you're wrong. I was just doing the song and dance for the benefit of others who might not have made up their mind up yet. If you prefer to be a believer, be my guest. End of thread, then. > you are sufficiently closed-minded and emotional that your opinions are > probably not worth listening to, except in areas where you have a really > extreme amount of personal experience and expertise, which this > obviously is not. > Well but that's not just true that it hasn't produced anything... How do you know? Apart from paper and web pages, I mean? Have you visited any of the labs, and participated in the experiments? > Anyway, I am now sick of discussing this with you, just as I got sick of > discussing it with John Clark. That's a pity, but it's your head, and you're free to do with it whatever you want. > Your arguments were certainly at a much higher level than Clark's; but, > in the end you provided no convincing refutation of the phenomenon, only > a critical analysis of a small subset of the experiments (and, notably, > NOT the ones I pointed out to you as apparently most convincing, which > did involve the kinds of controls you suggested). Hmm, I will give you one: I'll take a look. > My biggest lesson from this dialogue is the strong emotion that it > elicited from both John Clark and yourself. Wow. I think the Have you for a moment ever considered that your complete lack of reactions to very valid critique might have been the culprit? We both are only human. In fact, I'm not known for suffering fools gladly, and the length of the thread is sufficient evidence that I don't consider you such. > closed-minded, emotionally-hostile attitude you two display is every bit > as damaging to science as the opposite emotional/cognitive error, in > which people blindly accept whatever bullshit they want to believe. > > I do have a lot of respect for the overall scientific process, which > allows progress to keep going in spite of closed-mindedness, hostility, > gullibility, wishful-thinking, and all the other human weaknesses. The > scientific process is not optimal but it ultimately does work, which is > why I predict that within 20 years from now CF will be mainstream science. I would gladly take up that bet, but nobody will remember this in 20 years, ourselves included. And bets don't resolve truth, they're just visible display of personal commitment. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 11 20:13:54 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:13:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pu 239 production Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211150522.03cbcbe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:37 AM 2/11/2007 -0800, spike wrote: snip >So what is the advantage to having the U238 in solution? Getting the Pu 239 out of solution before it captures another neutron. Incidentally, the only people who would have interest in this are the inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency, and of course those who would are after nukes. The US and Russia both have more plutonium than they want. Why this process was not figured out and used decades ago is beyond me. Keith From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 20:11:20 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:11:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ESP controls In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070211133921.026a0950@satx.rr.com> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org> <000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede> <20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com> <20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com> <005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com> <45CF6973.7090601@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211133921.026a0950@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45CF7868.4090608@goertzel.org> Damien, > >> I assume that statisticians studying psi experiments have attempted to >> account for this phenomenon, but I don't know exactly how they have done >> so.... > > Yes, of course they have. The topic remains somewhat controversial > among statisticians, but Prof. Jessica Utts mentions it at, for random > example, http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp.html < Following > Rosenthal (1984), the authors calculated the "fail-safe N" indicating > the number of unreported studies that would have to be sitting in file > drawers in order to negate the significant effect. They found N = 14, > 268, or a ratio of 46 unreported studies for each one reported. > > Given how time-intensive these trials are, and how few labs are doing > them, such a "cover up" is extremely unlikely. > OK, fair enough. I agree this is the right kind of analysis to be done, and I'm glad someone has done it. >> The level of BS in the psi literature is far higher than in the CF >> literature > > I seriously doubt that. One has to use some elementary common sense in > segregating serious work (done at Princeton and Edinburgh > universities, for example) from the idiots, telephone "psychics" and > psychotic bloggers and from exploratory work later improved after > review and criticism. OK, that's a fair point. Regarding the Princeton work, however, how do you respond to criticisms of their statistics, e.g. http://www.inblogs.net/goodmath/2006/06/rebutting-pear-index.html Have these (or similar) criticisms of their statistical methodology been addressed by the PEAR folks or supporters somewhere? Basically, the criticism is: The PEAR guys found some obscure statistical flukes in their data. But, in any large dataset there are going to be **some** obscure statistical flukes. Questions are: a) did they find these flukes at time T, and then observe in data gathered after time T that these flukes still existed b) how thoroughly did they rule out the possibility that these flukes could be due to some obscure biases in the experimental equipment, the experimental setup, etc. I am mistrustful of results that consist of obscure, minor statistical effects. [Certainly this is qualitatively different from the reported CF effects in which large bursts of excess energy have been repeatedly reported by McKubre and others.] Are there other published psi results that do not involve recognizing small patterns in obscure statistics in large datasets? Or is this the nature of all the results that have been gathered? [I'm not saying the results should be dismissed because they are of this nature, but I would of course prefer to look at results that display more marked and obviously methodologically correctly obtained patterns] > One of the features I like about presentiment is that significant > responses *in advance of stimuli* can and has been found in old > instrumented response data prepared by neuroscientists such as Damasio > for entirely different purposes (as one would expect if the phenomenon > is real). > Can you point me to a reference on the latter? Ben From eugen at leitl.org Sun Feb 11 20:16:38 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:16:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <200702111856.l1BIuDfG028772@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211110907.03c88f78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200702111856.l1BIuDfG028772@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070211201638.GK21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:37:24AM -0800, spike wrote: > Keith I may be misunderstanding the process you propose. I see no advantage > in creating Pu239 by having the uranium atoms in solution, but I can imagine There's one big advantage: removal of plutonium in a continuous process. This is very different from periodically pulling rods, letting them decay in a pool, saw them up in a hot cell and dissolve them in fuming nitric acid, separating plutonium from uranium by Purex or similiar, and to casting uranium back into a rod, to be irradiated. Iterate. Notice that you can't ever beat continous process by an approximation of discrete steps as above, unless you consider irradation of seconds, which is not viable because of high process (above) friction. This is another big advantage of liquid-core thorium reactor, with continous separation of the ashes in a cycle. > couple of big disadvantages. My understanding is for neutron capture by a > uranium atom, the neutron must have a certain narrow range of momentum with > respect to the uranium nucleus. When the target uranium is in the solid > form its momentum is zero, so the trick to facilitating neutron capture is > in moderating the momentum of the neutrons. Uranium in solution introduces > an additional unknown: the momentum of the uranium atom. You might have a point there, but uranium salts in solution fission just fine. Solutions are not gases, speed spread is very narrow there. The energy spectrum distribution of moderated neutrons is not infinitely sharp either, so it's a wash. (IIRC hotter cores tend to automatically downregulate because of the capture mechanism you describe, not a problem in solution, though). > Secondly, it appears to me one would greatly reduce the neutron capture > probability by uranium atoms in solution because of the greatly reduced > actual number of uranium atoms. You will recapture most of the neutrons by the rest of the rods. They're not wasted. > So what is the advantage to having the U238 in solution? Because you can continuously remove the fission products from the medium. > If for whatever reason, this method really does produce more Pu239 (instead > of way less which is what I would expect), seems like we could do the same > trick even better with liquid U238, because of higher density of uranium > nucleii. It doesn't, because molten uranium won't absorb as many neutrons, and (the real reason) you can reprocess molten uranium on the fly as trivially as with an ion exchanger in a solution. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Feb 11 20:03:43 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:03:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <45CF7248.4000503@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <200702112023.l1BKNI9A009959@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings > > Well, I make my own decisions regarding what to spend my time on, of > course. ... > -- Ben G... > > > > BillK ... > > > Eugen Leitl > > > > Damien Broderick >et al This CF discussion is remarkable in its longevity, perhaps the only thread to exceed in number of posts and length the gun thread that so consumed ExI-chat a few years ago. This one has had far less personal recrimination. spike From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 20:28:17 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:28:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold fusion research In-Reply-To: <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> References: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> > Have you for a moment ever considered that your complete lack of > reactions to very valid critique might have been the culprit? > We both are only human. In fact, I'm not known for suffering fools gladly, > and the length of the thread is sufficient evidence that I > don't consider you such. > Eugen, My lack of reaction to your complaint about a lack of "light water" controls in a particular experiment, was due to the fact that this complaint was already discussed extensively in Beaudette's book, where Fleischmann's (not very convincing) excuse for not using this kind of control was given, and where a list of experiments that did use this kind of control was cited. It's not that I thought the complaint was invalid, just that it was not new to me based on my (not that deep) reading in the area. About your statement that the only possible explanations for CF involve violations of E=mc^2: I really doubt it. Schwinger did not seem to think so, and nor do the other scientists involved with CF. I really don't think Schwinger and all these other guys lack elementary physics insight. I don't think that affiliation with major universities, or possession of lengthy publication records, is a proof of correctness, of course. However, statistically speaking, I tend to in general attach more credibility to scientists with more reputable affiliations or publication lists. This heuristic can often be misleading, of course. As for my use of the term "ad hominem": You really didn't need to insinuate that I am unfamiliar with the basic elements of scientific method. I wouldn't trust myself to perform an important chemistry experiment either, but I do understand the basic issues involved. I am not a "true believer" in CF, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it turns out to be bullshit after all. However, my current estimate is that it is more likely true than not, and your arguments have not changed this. There are other intelligent people on this list who agree with me, I'm sure (e.g. Keith Henson, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Damien Broderick have all spoken up at some point in this dialogue), but none of them has felt like devoting the time to keep defending CF. I don't have more time to give to this dialogue either, really, I've got an AI to build... -- Ben From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Feb 11 21:27:09 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:27:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pu 239 production In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211150522.03cbcbe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200702112142.l1BLgWUV001653@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Subject: [extropy-chat] Pu 239 production > > At 10:37 AM 2/11/2007 -0800, spike wrote: ... > >So what is the advantage to having the U238 in solution? > > Getting the Pu 239 out of solution before it captures another neutron... Ja, but couldn't we do the same thing better with liquid uranium? Then perhaps we could take advantage of the difference in melting points or boiling points of uranium, thorium, plutonium, protactinium and neptunium. Perhaps a tungsten pipe could be arranged to carry molten uranium flowing past a stationary neutron source. ... > Why this process was not figured out and used decades ago is beyond me. > > Keith My first guess is the solubility of any uranium salt is sufficiently low that you wouldn't have enough uranium ions. If so, then this method would be way slower than using a centrifuge, but this does bring up an interesting and scary possibility. This method might be far easier technologically than separating isotopes the old fashioned way, which means it would be easier for the bad guys to get the stuff. Oy. spike From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Feb 11 21:54:34 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:54:34 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <20070211201638.GK21677@leitl.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211110907.03c88f78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200702111856.l1BIuDfG028772@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070211201638.GK21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1424.163.1.72.81.1171230874.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Spike: >> couple of big disadvantages. My understanding is for neutron capture by >> a >> uranium atom, the neutron must have a certain narrow range of momentum >> with >> respect to the uranium nucleus. When the target uranium is in the solid >> form its momentum is zero, so the trick to facilitating neutron capture >> is >> in moderating the momentum of the neutrons. Uranium in solution >> introduces >> an additional unknown: the momentum of the uranium atom. I don't think the peak is that fine grained. I would expect the uranium atoms (or rather, uranyl ions) to have a Maxwellian distribution with a mean at sqrt(3*T*k/m). So for T=300 K, k=1.3805e-23 J/K and m=340.90/6.022e23=5.66091e-22 I get 4.68485696 m/s! So the target is almost standing still. Neutron energies can apparently be in the MeV range, which would make the difference practically nil. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 22:17:17 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:47:17 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <20070211105707.GT21677@leitl.org> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210191822.022839c8@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0702101743v5b90d308j32f3aa92abfdedb@mail.gmail.com> <20070211105707.GT21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc0702111417t35294bd2m31b4d8eeeb6d1971@mail.gmail.com> It's like a pair of sunglasses for the planet... very cool. Also, personally I'd be building a *lot* of nuclear reactors, and shutting down coal power stations. Especially here in good-ole uranium rich, tectonically inert Australia. Build a few more than we need to power some bitchin' desalination plants, and we just might be able to keep living on this denuded dirtwad for a coupla more years. But that's just me... Emlyn On 11/02/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:13:48PM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > > > > Couldn't we darken the atmosphere to counteract the greenhouse > effect? > > Kind of nuclear winter vs global warming... > > Instead of investing in cleaner jet fuels, he'd better > 1) make them burn dirty, preferrably inject ice nucleators > 2) fly high, as high as possible > 3) long-term, fly with synfuel or cryogenic hydrogen as fuel, made from > renewable sources > > Global dimming needs a comeback. > > As to "scrubbing greenhouse gaess out of the atmosphere", > that's a red herring. They're are already being rather efficiently > scrubbed, what is needed is reducing our emissions. And it doesn't > take 25 megabucks to figure out how, we already know. > > > > > > > > > Emlyn > > > > > > On 11/02/07, Damien Broderick <[1]thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote: > > > > At 07:48 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > > > > > > > > I had to come > > > > >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That > > led to notes > > > > >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > > > > > > > >Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. > > > > > >Any though as to how one might show something to Richard Branson? > > why, yes, in general terms: > > Airline tycoon Richard Branson has announced a > > $US25 million ($A32m) prize for the first person > > to come up with a way of scrubbing greenhouse > > gases out of the atmosphere in the battle to beat global warming. > > Flanked by climate campaigners former US > > vice-president Al Gore and British ex-diplomat > > Crispin Tickell, Sir Richard said he hoped the > > Virgin Earth Challenge would spur innovative and > > creative thought to save mankind from self-destruction. > > The prize will initially be open for five years, > > with ideas assessed by a panel of judges > > including Sir Richard, Mr Gore and Mr Tickell as > > well as Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery, > > US climate scientist James Hansen and Briton > > James Lovelock. "Man created the problem and > > therefore man should solve the problem," he said. > > "Unless we can devise a way of removing CO 2 > > (carbon dioxide) from the Earth's atmosphere we > > will lose half of all species on Earth, all the > > coral reefs, 100 million people will be > > displaced, farmlands will become deserts and rainforests > > wastelands." > > Sir Richard rejected suggestions that he, as an > > airline owner, was being hypocritical in offering > > the prize. "I could ground my airline today, but > > British Airways would simply take its place," he > > said, noting that he was investing in cleaner engines and fuels. > > Top scientists predict that global average > > temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and four > > degrees this century due to human activities such > > as burning fossil fuels, putting millions at risk > > from rising sea levels, floods, famines and storms. > > Mr Gore, whose campaign film An Inconvenient > > Truth has helped spread the message, said all > > science showed something was drastically wrong > > but that Armageddon was not inevitable. > > The winner must devise a way of removing 1 > > billion tonnes of carbon gases a year from the > > atmosphere for 10 years with $US5 million > > ($AS6.4m) of the prize being paid at the start and the rest at the > > end. > > If no winner is identified after five years the > > judges can decide to extend the period. > > "This is the world's first deliberate attempt at > > planetary engineering," Dr Flannery said via > > video-link from Sydney. "We are at the last > > moment. Once we reach the tipping point it will > > have been taken out of our hands." > > REUTERS > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > [2]extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > [3]http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > References > > > > 1. mailto:thespike at satx.rr.com > > 2. mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > 3. http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFFzvaDdbAkQ4sp9r4RAm75AJ9zz33mV3K2ywe9AfsaH6F+x7PTdwCeOV4h > WXQHPI+VuQs1DLILgiNK1lw= > =LRkx > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Feb 11 22:21:26 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:51:26 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0702111417t35294bd2m31b4d8eeeb6d1971@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070210191822.022839c8@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0702101743v5b90d308j32f3aa92abfdedb@mail.gmail.com> <20070211105707.GT21677@leitl.org> <710b78fc0702111417t35294bd2m31b4d8eeeb6d1971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0702111421n50144eb7hbb9e55eb3a693913@mail.gmail.com> China is looking at doing it... http://www.edu.cn/20010101/22349.shtml Emlyn On 12/02/07, Emlyn wrote: > > It's like a pair of sunglasses for the planet... very cool. > > Also, personally I'd be building a *lot* of nuclear reactors, and shutting > down coal power stations. Especially here in good-ole uranium rich, > tectonically inert Australia. Build a few more than we need to power some > bitchin' desalination plants, and we just might be able to keep living on > this denuded dirtwad for a coupla more years. But that's just me... > > Emlyn > > On 11/02/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:13:48PM +1030, Emlyn wrote: > > > > > > Couldn't we darken the atmosphere to counteract the greenhouse > > effect? > > > Kind of nuclear winter vs global warming... > > > > Instead of investing in cleaner jet fuels, he'd better > > 1) make them burn dirty, preferrably inject ice nucleators > > 2) fly high, as high as possible > > 3) long-term, fly with synfuel or cryogenic hydrogen as fuel, made from > > renewable sources > > > > Global dimming needs a comeback. > > > > As to "scrubbing greenhouse gaess out of the atmosphere", > > that's a red herring. They're are already being rather efficiently > > scrubbed, what is needed is reducing our emissions. And it doesn't > > take 25 megabucks to figure out how, we already know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Emlyn > > > > > > > > > On 11/02/07, Damien Broderick <[1]thespike@ satx.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > At 07:48 PM 2/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I had to come > > > > > >up with a way the energy and carbon crisis was solved. That > > > > > led to notes > > > > > >so extensive as to almost constitute a business plan. > > > > > > > > > >Send them to Richard Branson, collect $25 million. > > > > > > > >Any though as to how one might show something to Richard > > Branson? > > > why, yes, in general terms: > > > Airline tycoon Richard Branson has announced a > > > $US25 million ($A32m) prize for the first person > > > to come up with a way of scrubbing greenhouse > > > gases out of the atmosphere in the battle to beat global warming. > > > Flanked by climate campaigners former US > > > vice-president Al Gore and British ex-diplomat > > > Crispin Tickell, Sir Richard said he hoped the > > > Virgin Earth Challenge would spur innovative and > > > creative thought to save mankind from self-destruction. > > > The prize will initially be open for five years, > > > with ideas assessed by a panel of judges > > > including Sir Richard, Mr Gore and Mr Tickell as > > > well as Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery, > > > US climate scientist James Hansen and Briton > > > James Lovelock. "Man created the problem and > > > therefore man should solve the problem," he said. > > > "Unless we can devise a way of removing CO 2 > > > (carbon dioxide) from the Earth's atmosphere we > > > will lose half of all species on Earth, all the > > > coral reefs, 100 million people will be > > > displaced, farmlands will become deserts and rainforests > > > wastelands." > > > Sir Richard rejected suggestions that he, as an > > > airline owner, was being hypocritical in offering > > > the prize. "I could ground my airline today, but > > > British Airways would simply take its place," he > > > said, noting that he was investing in cleaner engines and fuels. > > > Top scientists predict that global average > > > temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and four > > > degrees this century due to human activities such > > > as burning fossil fuels, putting millions at risk > > > from rising sea levels, floods, famines and storms. > > > Mr Gore, whose campaign film An Inconvenient > > > Truth has helped spread the message, said all > > > science showed something was drastically wrong > > > but that Armageddon was not inevitable. > > > The winner must devise a way of removing 1 > > > billion tonnes of carbon gases a year from the > > > atmosphere for 10 years with $US5 million > > > ($AS6.4m) of the prize being paid at the start and the rest at > > the > > > end. > > > If no winner is identified after five years the > > > judges can decide to extend the period. > > > "This is the world's first deliberate attempt at > > > planetary engineering," Dr Flannery said via > > > video-link from Sydney. "We are at the last > > > moment. Once we reach the tipping point it will > > > have been taken out of our hands." > > > REUTERS > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > [2]extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > [3]http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > References > > > > > > 1. mailto:thespike at satx.rr.com > > > 2. mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > 3. http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > -- > > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > > ______________________________________________________________ > > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iD8DBQFFzvaDdbAkQ4sp9r4RAm75AJ9zz33mV3K2ywe9AfsaH6F+x7PTdwCeOV4h > > WXQHPI+VuQs1DLILgiNK1lw= > > =LRkx > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Sun Feb 11 22:40:46 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:40:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving on (was CF research) In-Reply-To: <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> References: <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:28 PM 2/11/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: snip >There are other intelligent people on this list who agree with me, I'm >sure (e.g. Keith Henson, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Damien Broderick have >all spoken up at some point in this dialogue), but none of them has felt >like devoting the time to keep defending CF. I can't speak for the others, but in general arguing with emotionally involved people is a waste of time. It isn't like what we say here will have any effect on the future of CF, where as there are areas where our discussion might make a difference. >I don't have more time to >give to this dialogue either, really, I've got an AI to build... Good. Have you considered an intermediate step? An intelligence amplifier that could build engineering models and keep track of details would be of enormous help. Not to mention being worth a fortune. Keith Henson From ben at goertzel.org Sun Feb 11 22:44:59 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:44:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Intermediate steps and AGI Message-ID: <3cf171fe0702111444l7113a4f6ief5c724a8bee8202@mail.gmail.com> > >I don't have more time to > >give to this dialogue either, really, I've got an AI to build... > > Good. > > Have you considered an intermediate step? An intelligence amplifier that > could build engineering models and keep track of details would be of > enormous help. Not to mention being worth a fortune. This is an worthwhile topic (I don't mean engineering modeling specifically (though yeah, that is worthwhile too, but I don't have much to say about it) but "intermediate steps to AGI" more generally). Unfortunately I have concluded that "intermediate steps" are going to be of fairly limited **scientific** value within the Novamente context. The Novamente system was designed as an integrative system intended to give rise to intelligent behavior via the combination of all the parts. It was not designed to give rise to linearly more and more intelligent behavior, incrementally, as more and more of the parts are introduced. That would be a nice property, but I don't currently know how to make an AGI design that possesses it. Nor does anyone, so far as I know. Unfortunately, according to the logic of the design itself, the preliminary and partial forms of NM are not likely to display any kind of awesomely powerful AGI. It is just the nature of the design that the generality of the system's intelligence is supposed to emerge via cooperative activity of all the different parts. This due to is the "complex, self-organizing systems" aspect of the design that some probability-and-logic buffs don't adequately appreciate. However, that doesn't imply that preliminary versions won't be able to do anything useful. For example, I think that Novamente-based "reinforcement learning + memory" for embodied agent learning in a simulation world, if tuned for efficiency, can be useful -- and should be doable using Novamente inference and evolutionary learning, combined with pretty simplistic versions of attention allocation and action selection, and without concept creation or map formation or some other advanced Novamente dynamics. We are currently doing experimental work like this right now, teaching the system to play simple doggish games in the simulation world. For another example, we have done some experiments running Novamente-based inference based on the output of a rule-based NLP system. This seems to be useful for biological hypothesis generation, if the text is PubMed abstracts, for instance. Also, Novamente "inference + evolutionary learning" can be a powerful datamining tool; though we haven't used it as such yet, we probably will at some point as Novamente LLC has some commercial datamining contracts that we are currently addressing using simpler tools. So, I do think that NM can be **useful** before completion, for at least three narrow-AI apps: -- embodied agent control -- reasoning based on NLP parsing -- data mining and probably a lot more. However, all these are basically narrow-AI apps, at which an incomplete NM is likely to perform incrementally rather than mind-blowingly better than the best non-proto-AGI narrow-AI approaches (which are themselves quite complicated, though not as complicated as NM). Alas, seeing the "AGI wake up" in any meaningful sense is not gonna happen till essentially the whole NM design is implemented and tuned and taught a bit. That's just the nature of the beast. Mind, or at least the NM variant of mind, is holistic. -- Ben G From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Feb 11 23:11:49 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:11:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:47 AM 2/12/2007 +1030, you wrote: snip >As to "scrubbing greenhouse gaess out of the atmosphere", >that's a red herring. They're are already being rather efficiently >scrubbed, what is needed is reducing our emissions. I have said for 20 years that the real carbon dioxide crisis will come from *to little* of it in the atmosphere. The reason is that diamond or carbon nanotubes are the best engineering material for a lot of uses. "Come the revolution" (the nanotech revolution) carbon will rapidly be mined out of the air to build structures large and small. Want a vacuum tunnel from NYC to LA? Plant a line of engineered trees that suck carbon out of the air and excrete diamond deep underground for the tube shell. Given more energy than sunlight to power the process, it could go really fast. Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Feb 11 23:14:23 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:14:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <1424.163.1.72.81.1171230874.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200702112314.l1BNENLD023071@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... > > I don't think the peak is that fine grained. I would expect the uranium > atoms (or rather, uranyl ions) to have a Maxwellian distribution with a > mean at sqrt(3*T*k/m). So for T=300 K, k=1.3805e-23 J/K and > m=340.90/6.022e23=5.66091e-22 I get 4.68485696 m/s! So the target is > almost standing still. Neutron energies can apparently be in the MeV > range, which would make the difference practically nil... Anders Sandberg Cool calculation Anders! The neutrons that are captured hafta be much lower energy than MeV if I understand the process correctly. The reason a light water reactor doesn't create much plutonium is that the light hydrogen doesn't slow the neutrons enough for effective capture by the uranium atoms. But the heavy water reactors do. But I am outta my field of expertise here. This all gets back around to why Iran is having such a hard time convincing the world that they are really not making bombs, but rather merely want to make power: if that were the case they would be building simpler and cheaper light water reactors only. But Iran is planning heavy water reactors, which are needed to make plutonium, which is needed to make bombs, or rather the kinds of bombs that can be carried on missiles. And those comments about Israel being wiped off the map probably don't help. spike From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Feb 11 23:53:20 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:53:20 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <200702112314.l1BNENLD023071@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200702112314.l1BNENLD023071@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > Cool calculation Anders! The neutrons that are captured hafta be much > lower > energy than MeV if I understand the process correctly. Yes, I just checked up the physics. They have to be thermalized by several bounces down to 0.025 eV, which produces a speed of 2.2 km/s. At that speed they have a big cross-section. Still, the speed is three orders of magnitude larger than the movement of the nuclei, so I see no problem with sloshy targets. > And those comments about Israel being wiped off the map probably don't > help. But see it from the bright side: GWB is no longer the worst diplomat on the map! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From dsunley at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 00:20:38 2007 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:20:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Is it possible that Branson /knows/ this, and is hoping that a 25 million dollar bit of research now will net him hundreds of billions of dollars 25-50 years from now? Who ends up with ownership of the winning process anyways? Darin Sunley dsunley at shaw.ca //Read your Bible. On 2/11/07, Keith Henson wrote: > At 08:47 AM 2/12/2007 +1030, you wrote: > > > I have said for 20 years that the real carbon dioxide crisis will come from > *to little* of it in the atmosphere. The reason is that diamond or carbon > nanotubes are the best engineering material for a lot of uses. "Come the > revolution" (the nanotech revolution) carbon will rapidly be mined out of > the air to build structures large and small. > Keith Henson From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Feb 12 00:31:53 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:31:53 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <53641.86.130.31.99.1171240313.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Darin Sunley wrote: > Is it possible that Branson /knows/ this, and is hoping that a 25 > million dollar bit of research now will net him hundreds of billions > of dollars 25-50 years from now? Who ends up with ownership of the > winning process anyways? He would be a bad businessman if he did not see profit potential in reducing the climate change problem. Given that his main investments are in airlines, and airlines are particularly criticised by the anti-cc people, anything that improves his green cred and might produce ways of reducing the problem is a good thing. 25 million dollars is peanuts when you look at it from that angle. If only more businesses acted like that. Traditional science funding seems to promote traditional solutions, while prizes gets the creativity out of the woodwork. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Feb 12 05:14:00 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:14:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and > EP] > > > spike wrote: > > Cool calculation Anders! The neutrons that are captured hafta be much > > lower energy than MeV if I understand the process correctly. > > Yes, I just checked up the physics. They have to be thermalized by several > bounces down to 0.025 eV, which produces a speed of 2.2 km/s. At that > speed they have a big cross-section. Still, the speed is three orders of > magnitude larger than the movement of the nuclei, so I see no problem with > sloshy targets... Ja, a fraction of an eV is what I recalled, altho my recollections from physics lectures are... very old now, my young friend. {8^D Sloshy targets are fine, I agree, but in Pu solution makes the ions too rarified to get very many captures in our lifetimes. Solutions are another three orders of magnitude more rarified than a liquid metal, if my vague recollections of typical solubility of heavy metal salts are any better than my physics memory. > > And those comments about Israel being wiped off the map probably don't > > help. > > But see it from the bright side: GWB is no longer the worst diplomat on > the map! --Anders Sandberg Waaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaa! Thanks Anders, this makes my day. {8-] spike From jnh at vt11.net Mon Feb 12 07:33:14 2007 From: jnh at vt11.net (Jordan Hazen) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:33:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070212073314.GA18318@vt11.net> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:14:00PM -0800, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and > > EP] > > > > > > spike wrote: > > > Cool calculation Anders! The neutrons that are captured hafta be much > > > lower energy than MeV if I understand the process correctly. > > > > Yes, I just checked up the physics. They have to be thermalized by several > > bounces down to 0.025 eV, which produces a speed of 2.2 km/s. At that > > speed they have a big cross-section. Still, the speed is three orders of > > magnitude larger than the movement of the nuclei, so I see no problem with > > sloshy targets... > > Ja, a fraction of an eV is what I recalled, altho my recollections from > physics lectures are... very old now, my young friend. {8^D Sloshy targets > are fine, I agree, but in Pu solution makes the ions too rarified to get > very many captures in our lifetimes. Solutions are another three orders of > magnitude more rarified than a liquid metal, if my vague recollections of > typical solubility of heavy metal salts are any better than my physics > memory. Molten salt reactors, which circulate UF4 dissolved in (mostly) LiF, seem like a good compromise candidate between molten metals vs. aqueous solutions. Oak Ridge operated one for many years. http://nuclear.inl.gov/gen4/msr.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor This allows for on-stream reprocessing as well, and be fueled by uranium, thorium, or other actinides, including transuranic wastes from other reactor types. -- Jordan. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Feb 12 07:58:51 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:58:51 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070212075851.GO21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:14:00PM -0800, spike wrote: > > > And those comments about Israel being wiped off the map probably don't > > > help. > > > > But see it from the bright side: GWB is no longer the worst diplomat on > > the map! --Anders Sandberg > > > Waaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaa! Thanks Anders, this makes my day. {8-] spike It is very funny. Also, it is simply not true. Despite of what the media reported, Ahmadinejad said no such thing (read the original letter). Now it is really curious why that claim made it to the press, and the press never bothered to run a retraction. Makes one really wonder, doesn't it? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Mon Feb 12 08:24:22 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:24:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Happy Hearts Day Extropes References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211122403.03cc2b40@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <013301c74e7f$3a25aff0$0200a8c0@Nano> Friends, I've made an animated Valentine for you. You can watch it here: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/valentines07.htm Happy Valentines day! Gina "Heartsday" Miller www.nanogirl.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnh at vt11.net Mon Feb 12 09:30:48 2007 From: jnh at vt11.net (Jordan Hazen) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 04:30:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <20070212075851.GO21677@leitl.org> References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070212075851.GO21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070212093048.GB18318@vt11.net> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 08:58:51AM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:14:00PM -0800, spike wrote: > > > > > And those comments about Israel being wiped off the map > > > > probably don't help. > > > > > > But see it from the bright side: GWB is no longer the worst > > > diplomat on the map! --Anders Sandberg > > > > > > Waaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaa! Thanks Anders, this makes my day. > > {8-] spike > > It is very funny. Also, it is simply not true. Despite of what the > media reported, Ahmadinejad said no such thing (read the original > letter). Now it is really curious why that claim made it to the > press, and the press never bothered to run a retraction. > > Makes one really wonder, doesn't it? Ahmadinejad's original remark may have been mistranslated, and/or taken out of context. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html -- Jordan. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Feb 12 09:54:24 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:54:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <20070212073314.GA18318@vt11.net> References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070212073314.GA18318@vt11.net> Message-ID: <20070212095424.GY21677@leitl.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 02:33:14AM -0500, Jordan Hazen wrote: > This allows for on-stream reprocessing as well, and be fueled by > uranium, thorium, or other actinides, including transuranic wastes > from other reactor types. There's a nice blog plugging molten-salt thorium as an alternative to conventional enrichened-uranium reactor: http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ However, the amount of R&D required to develop this into a commercial reactor is better spent on regenerative energy sources. A solution in search of a problem... -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Feb 12 08:36:15 2007 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:36:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> I find it fascinating that there has been such a long dispute here on cold fusion (CF) without an attempt to clarify that anyone actually disagrees about anything. Please, disputants and interested observers, offer (publicly or privately) estimates or bounds for these four probabilities: 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as opposed to misleading experimental technique. 2A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, and indicates fundamental new physics, as opposed to a new chemistry detail, such as a unexpected molecular structure. 1B. The threshold probability for 1A that would justify further research into CF. 2B. The threshold probability for 2A that would justify further research into CF. Until you know your estimates or bounds for such numbers conflict, you don't know you disagree. The A disagreements are about facts, while the B disagreements are more about values. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From eugen at leitl.org Mon Feb 12 10:58:10 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:58:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20070212105810.GA21677@leitl.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:36:15AM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: > I find it fascinating that there has been such a long dispute here on > cold fusion (CF) without an attempt to clarify that anyone actually > disagrees about anything. Please, disputants and interested I thought it's rather obvious what we're disagreeing with, in so many words it took away half a Sunday I could really ill afford. Talking about priorities... > observers, offer (publicly or privately) estimates or bounds for > these four probabilities: > > 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as > opposed to misleading experimental technique. The point is that the experiments are so bad we can't tell. > 2A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, and > indicates fundamental new physics, as opposed to a new chemistry > detail, such as a unexpected molecular structure. We don't know whether there's excess heat. If there really is excess heat, in many experiments the power density claimed is so high it must be of a nuclear origin. It cannot be a chemical, or a physical (nonnuclear) effect. If the effect is real, it is Big News (you probably remember the hullaballoo, the excitement was palpable), and would deserve big funding. > 1B. The threshold probability for 1A that would justify further > research into CF. The research is cheap enough that interested parties can continue doing that, and if necessary, in their own literal garage or cellar. I would not spend any of my time or money, because the experiments are so bad we can't tell. There are thousands of other bad science projects competing for funds, if we funded them all we couldn't get anything important done. > 2B. The threshold probability for 2A that would justify further > research into CF. > > Until you know your estimates or bounds for such numbers conflict, > you don't know you disagree. The A disagreements are about facts, > while the B disagreements are more about values. The chief point is that the science is so bad we can't agree on facts. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 13:31:37 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:31:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving on (was CF research) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <62c14240702120531u11dbb489r5a72cff5805e2e7@mail.gmail.com> On 2/11/07, Keith Henson wrote: > Have you considered an intermediate step? An intelligence amplifier that > could build engineering models and keep track of details would be of > enormous help. Not to mention being worth a fortune. Can you further qualify "intelligence amplifier"? I imagine a concoction of chemicals that when consumed by already-smart people, makes them more likely to have periods of highly lucid creativity and focused output towards a goal. This too would be worth a fortune, but does not scale as well as computer hardware due to the relative scarcity of already-smart people. :) From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 14:06:09 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:06:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62c14240702120606o511b9139xc17f1f0470bf83e1@mail.gmail.com> On 2/11/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > to do so. The "energy crisis" is is a political *leadership* problem. (If > you look at recent proposals to ban incandescent bulbs entirely in CA and in > state buildings in NJ you can see some law makers are starting to see the > light.) incandescent bulbs ... see the light... Was that intentional? From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 12 15:02:29 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:02:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving on (was CF research) In-Reply-To: <62c14240702120531u11dbb489r5a72cff5805e2e7@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070212095940.03d19ce8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:31 AM 2/12/2007 -0500, you wrote: >On 2/11/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > Have you considered an intermediate step? An intelligence amplifier that > > could build engineering models and keep track of details would be of > > enormous help. Not to mention being worth a fortune. > >Can you further qualify "intelligence amplifier"? A slide rule is an intelligence amplifier. Computers more so, Google/Wikipedia etc. I have been working on a space elevator design recently and the nitpicking details are painful to keep track of. >I imagine a concoction of chemicals that when consumed by >already-smart people, makes them more likely to have periods of highly >lucid creativity and focused output towards a goal. This too would be >worth a fortune, but does not scale as well as computer hardware due >to the relative scarcity of already-smart people. :) Hmm. Keith From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 15:17:12 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:17:12 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <62c14240702120606o511b9139xc17f1f0470bf83e1@mail.gmail.com> References: <62c14240702120606o511b9139xc17f1f0470bf83e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2/12/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On 2/11/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > to do so. The "energy crisis" is is a political *leadership* > problem. (If > > you look at recent proposals to ban incandescent bulbs entirely in CA > and in > > state buildings in NJ you can see some law makers are starting to see > the > > light.) > > incandescent bulbs ... see the light... > > Was that intentional? I think so. I'm not totally inept at turning out a good phrase from time to time. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 12 13:16:24 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:16:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070212080521.03be6180@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:14 PM 2/11/2007 -0800, spike wrote: snip > Sloshy targets >are fine, I agree, but in Pu solution makes the ions too rarified to get >very many captures in our lifetimes. Solutions are another three orders of >magnitude more rarified than a liquid metal, if my vague recollections of >typical solubility of heavy metal salts are any better than my physics >memory. Uranyl Nitrate, Solubility: ~66g/100 g water "Uranyl nitrate was used to fuel Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors in the 1950s. However it proved too corrosive in this application, and the experiments were abandoned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranyl_nitrate Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueous_Homogeneous_Reactor Google (and Wikipedia) is your friend. Keith From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Feb 12 15:35:42 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:35:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070212080521.03be6180@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070212080521.03be6180@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 2/12/07, Keith Henson wrote: > Uranyl Nitrate, Solubility: ~66g/100 g water > > "Uranyl nitrate was used to fuel Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors in the > 1950s. Keith, I am curious. During recent events I think I ran across something that said you were an EE. But I know from other past discussions and things that I've tripped across over the years that your knowledge base extends *way* beyond just that. Is most of that formal learning or informal learning? You can take the discussion offlist if you like. Thanks, R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Mon Feb 12 15:55:12 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:55:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <45D08DE0.2070902@goertzel.org> Robin Hanson wrote: > I find it fascinating that there has been such a long dispute here on > cold fusion (CF) without an attempt to clarify that anyone actually > disagrees about anything. Robin, I think the fact of disagreement is QUITE clear. {Keith, Damien, Eliezer} and I may not agree with {John Clark, Eugen} about CF but we am confident we agree with them **that we disagree** ;-) > Please, disputants and interested > observers, offer (publicly or privately) estimates or bounds for > these four probabilities: > > 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as > opposed to misleading experimental technique. > [.7 , .9] > 2A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, and > indicates fundamental new physics, as opposed to a new chemistry > detail, such as a unexpected molecular structure. > Conditional on it being real, the odds seem > .9 that it indicates fundamental new physics > 1B. The threshold probability for 1A that would justify further > research into CF. > .01 [but the amount of research of course depends on the probability] > 2B. The threshold probability for 2A that would justify further > research into CF. > > 0 -- Ben From jonkc at att.net Mon Feb 12 16:36:14 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:36:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com><20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com><005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com><006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211130148.02318940@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002e01c74ec3$ee5eadc0$0f0b4e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > **GAME OVER!!** I rather think not. What would be the point of reading it, what conceivable ASCII sequence could this Bozo post onto his website that would convince me that he was right when I have no way of knowing if the "data" he posts came from a real experiment or entirely from his own imagination? And please don't tell me such a thing is inconceivable, it is all too conceivable especially in the field of ESP and cold fusion. The beauty of a peer review journal is that it builds a chain of trust between the reader and the experimenter. A website just tells me somebody knows how to type. Perhaps Dennett was embarrassed, I don't know I wasn't there, but I'll tell you one thing, I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN! I am PROUD to say I have managed to find more interesting things to do with my time than actually reading this stuff, and long "uncomfortable" silences don't bother me at all when I know that I am right and they are wrong. Life is short and you can't read everything. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Mon Feb 12 16:47:18 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:47:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <002e01c74ec3$ee5eadc0$0f0b4e0c@MyComputer> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com><20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com><005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com><006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211130148.02318940@satx.rr.com> <002e01c74ec3$ee5eadc0$0f0b4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <45D09A16.4020908@goertzel.org> > I am PROUD to say I have managed to > find more interesting things to do with my time than actually reading this > stuff, and long "uncomfortable" silences don't bother me at all when I know > that I am right and they are wrong. Life is short and you can't read > everything. > > John K Clark > Time allocation decisions are necessary, and I don't fault you for yours. However, you might do well to allocate some time to study the cognitive psychology literature, so as to more fully understand the innate human inclination toward overconfidence, which is a trait you are demonstrating quite strongly in this and other posts. If you haven't even looked at the data, you certainly can't "know that [you] are right and they are wrong." -- Ben > From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 12 17:32:23 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:32:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070212080521.03be6180@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070212080521.03be6180@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070212105809.03c44b28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:35 PM 2/12/2007 +0000, Robert wrote: >On 2/12/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> >wrote: >>Uranyl Nitrate, Solubility: ~66g/100 g water >> >>"Uranyl nitrate was used to fuel Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors in the 1950s. > >Keith, I am curious. During recent events I think I ran across something >that said you were an EE. But I know from other past discussions and >things that I've tripped across over the years that your knowledge base >extends *way* beyond just that. Is most of that formal learning or >informal learning? Some of each. It's probably relevant here for people with kids, though the environment is so different now that it may provide little guidance. My 5th grade the classroom had a set of World Book encyclopedias. The teacher used to let me ignore what was going on in class and read them. The summer I turned 15 ran into Scientific American at a relatives house. Still remember the main article, one on the assembly of the tobacco mosaic virus. My parents gave me a subscription and I read the back issues to 1948, and read every issue more or less cover to cover until it was dumbed down (late 70s? early 80s?) Plus an awful lot of issues of Science and Nature in the library. In junior high read all the books on chemistry and physics in the library. Studied organic chemistry in 9th grade on my own, still have the 3 inch thick textbook by Louis Fieser. Came in handy while working on computers in an oil refinery. Never had a biology course. Of course, this left me with a rather limited number of contemporaries with whom I could socially interact. :-) In those days engineering covered a lot of core physics (through quantum and solid state), math through and a bit beyond differential equations, and applied courses such as fluid mechanics and electrical power lab. I can tell funny stories about both of these last if you want. First few years out working got very interesting in system dynamics. Then there was the space colony business. For the co authored papers for the Space Manufacturing Conferences, had to learn a great deal about farming, vapor phase deposition, fracture mechanics and mixed solid/gas heat transfers. Got into cryonics through Eric Drexler and nanotechnology. When Alcor had to freeze Jerry Leaf who had been doing the surgery, learned how to put patients on cardiac bypass and did it several times. From Dawkin's Selfish Gene got interested in memes and from there into evolutionary psychology in trying to figure out why cult members act like drug addicts. But as to how I came up with the numbers . . . . just used Google. :-) (It was less trouble than going in the other room to look at a copy of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. (38th ed). BTW, just looked up uranyl nitrate up in the Handbook and it shows an even higher solubility. Keith PS Yesterday talked to a friend who lives in Oak Ridge. He confirmed my thoughts and said this was the second bad news he had this week. Someone has reduced the jitter in a commercially available initiator to 20 ns. He had to explain this eliminates the need for explosive lenses. From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Feb 12 17:03:04 2007 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:03:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <20070212105810.GA21677@leitl.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <20070212105810.GA21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <0JDD000XQ0P347E0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> At 05:58 AM 2/12/2007, Eugen* Leitl wrote: > > offer (publicly or privately) estimates or bounds for > > these four probabilities: > > 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as > > opposed to misleading experimental technique. > >The point is that the experiments are so bad we can't tell. > > > 2A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, and > > indicates fundamental new physics, as opposed to a new chemistry > > detail, such as a unexpected molecular structure. > >We don't know whether there's excess heat. ... I guess you don't believe in the concept of probabilities as a way to express uncertainty? Are there any odds at which you would bet? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From ben at goertzel.org Mon Feb 12 17:55:57 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:55:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <0JDD000XQ0P347E0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <20070212105810.GA21677@leitl.org> <0JDD000XQ0P347E0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <45D0AA2D.9020306@goertzel.org> Robin Hanson wrote: > At 05:58 AM 2/12/2007, Eugen* Leitl wrote: > >>> offer (publicly or privately) estimates or bounds for >>> these four probabilities: >>> 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as >>> opposed to misleading experimental technique. >>> >> The point is that the experiments are so bad we can't tell. >> BTW you did not review the McKubre experiments (identified by Beaudette as the first strong replications of the phenomenon), only some apparently quasi-randomly selected ones from a website So, making a blanket statement such as the above seems to be unjustified based on the evidence that you have reviewed (unless you have reviewed more evidence recently and not discussed it here). -- Ben From eugen at leitl.org Mon Feb 12 17:56:24 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:56:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <0JDD000XQ0P347E0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <20070212105810.GA21677@leitl.org> <0JDD000XQ0P347E0@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <20070212175623.GW21677@leitl.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:03:04PM -0500, Robin Hanson wrote: > I guess you don't believe in the concept of probabilities as a way to I can't compute the probability of something I don't know. If there's no light in the room I don't know whether I'll trip on a chair on the way to the light switch. > express uncertainty? Are there any odds at which you would bet? I wouldn't, because odds are just public displays of commitment. All I know that the science is bad, that's a 0.9 probability at least. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hibbert at mydruthers.com Mon Feb 12 17:53:42 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:53:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <45D0A9A6.1050603@mydruthers.com> I'm neither a chemist or a physicist, and haven't participated in the CF discussion. But I read widely in science, and occasionally support out-of-the-mainstream theories. ( Gold's "Deep, Hot Biosphere", de Grey's SENS proposal, Cryonics, Nanotech long before SciAm caved in, but not psi.) > 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as > opposed to misleading experimental technique. not more than 5%. maybe less. > 2A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, and > indicates fundamental new physics, as opposed to a new chemistry > detail, such as a unexpected molecular structure. The chance of new fundamental physics at the level of QED or String Theory is negligible. If I understand the distinction, HT superconductors are "unexpected molecular structure". I don't think there's a noticeable chance that CF rises above that. > 1B. The threshold probability for 1A that would justify further > research into CF. After 15 years, 5% may not be good enough. People who understand the physics and chemistry better would have to do a more thorough evaluation. This may be at the level I described when talking about Technology Review's SENS challenge. http://pancrit.blogspot.com/2006/07/sens-debate-continued.html A small panel of serious, respected researchers appointed to take a serious look at the evidence. Their role would be to actually look at the evidence. I don't fault Dennet for being willing to debate without looking at individual reports, but there comes a time when someone should actually do so. > 2B. The threshold probability for 2A that would justify further > research into CF. Somewhere above negligible. (i.e. this doesn't provide the necessary justification for continued funding.) 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 hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Feb 12 20:18:32 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:18:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cognitive psychology (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070212151811.03b7f358@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:47 AM 2/12/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: snip >However, you might do well to allocate some time to study the cognitive >psychology literature, so as to more fully understand the innate human >inclination toward overconfidence, which is a trait . . . . Particularly interesting is the Drew Westen paper on partisans I have referenced. I look forward to the day people can attach a brain scan showing what parts of their brains were active when they said something. :-) Keith From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Feb 12 20:29:52 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:29:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] EVENT: Vernor Vinge Challenges the Singularity 2/15 Message-ID: <380-220072112202952646@M2W019.mail2web.com> Note: Vinge's talk is this THURSDAY evening, Feb. 15, not the usual Friday. Science fiction writer Vernor Vinge invented the concept that dominates thinking about technology these days. He called it "the Singularity"--- the idea that technology (computer tech, biotech, nanotech) is now accelerating so exponentially that it will lead to a massive, irreversible, and profoundly unpredictable transformation of humanity by mid-century. This Thursday evening Vinge will challenge his own idea for the first time: "I have some plausible, non-singularity scenarios that get us into a human-scale world with long time horizons. I'll describe the near-term peculiarities I see for such scenarios and then discuss what such a world might be like across ten or twenty thousand years. Finally, I'd like to talk about dangers and defenses related to these scenarios." "What If the Singularity Does NOT Happen?" Vernor Vinge, Cowell Theater, Fort Mason, San Francisco, 7pm, Thursday, February 15. The lecture starts promptly at 7:30pm. Admission is free (a $10 donation is always welcome, not required). This may be a particularly popular lecture, so I advise coming early to be sure of a seat. Vernor Vinge (pronounced "VIN-jee") is author of the cyberspace-anticipating 1981 novella "True Names"; ACROSS REALTIME (1987, built around the Singularity idea); the Hugo Award-winning A FIRE UPON THE DEEP (1992) and A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY (1999); and his new novel of the near future, RAINBOWS END, which will be available at the talk. This is one of a monthly series of Seminars About Long-term Thinking organized by The Long Now Foundation. All previous talks are available for download from the final link in this note. If you would like to be notified by email of forthcoming talks, please contact Simone Davalos--- simone at longnow.org, 415-561-6582--- or go here to sign up online. Talks coming up: Mar. 9 - Brian Fagan, "We Are Not the First to Suffer Through Climate Change" Apr. 27 - Frans Lanting, "Life's Journey Through Time" May 11 - Steven Johnson, "The Long Zoom" June 8 - Paul Hawken, "The New Great Transformation" June 29 - Francis Fukuyama, "'The End of History' Revisited" Sep. 14 - Niall Ferguson & Peter Schwartz, "Historian vs. Futurist on Human Progress" Oct. 12 - Juan Enriquez, "Mapping the Frontier of Knowledge" Nov. 9 - Rosabeth Moss Kanter, "Enduring Principles for Changing Times" Dec. 14 - Jon Ippolito & Joline Blais, "The Edge of Art" (You are welcome to forward this note to anyone you think might be interested. --Stewart Brand) -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From jonkc at att.net Mon Feb 12 21:58:55 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:58:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com><20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com><005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com><006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211130148.02318940@satx.rr.com><002e01c74ec3$ee5eadc0$0f0b4e0c@MyComputer> <45D09A16.4020908@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <005a01c74ef1$0bc8eab0$3c064e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > If you haven't even looked at the data, you certainly can't "know that > [you] are right and they are wrong." Actually I think I can. Mathematicians often receive "proofs" from crackpots claiming to have found a way to square the circle, often these things are very long, complex, and in their way almost ingenious. The error in the proof is not immediately obvious, but they know it must be there somewhere because it was proven to everybody's satisfaction more that a century ago that squaring the circle is imposable. There is just no point spending weeks or months digging out the error, they know immediately it's bullshit. In the same way the possibility that Joe Blow the truck driver is an experimental mega genius of such magnitude that he can detect something hundreds of world class experimenters have been unable to do for 17 years is so astronomically unlikely that yes, I can say with confidence it is BULLSHIT without reading one word of it. > Knee-jerk negative reactions not grounded in research There is nothing wrong with knee jerk reactions, it must have a survival advantage or Evolution would not have produced it. Some things require a great deal of cognitive reflection, and some things do not. Knee jerk reaction sorts it out. > there have been many psi experiments with adequate controls. Well then, if the phenomena is real and experiments with adequate controls have already proven it, then it's poised to break into the mainstream. It must be. Granted mainstream scientists aren't as brilliant as Joe Blow the truck driver but they aren't complete imbeciles, at least not every single one of them. So I issue this challenge to members of this list who do not think ESP or cold fusion is a stinking reeking mass of putrid shit; If a pro ESP or cold fusion article appears in Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters before February 12 2008 I will send you one dollar, if it doesn't you will send me one dollar. If you want a longer timeframe then this is the bet, if the article appears before February 12 2009 I will send you 10 dollars, if it doesn't you will send me 10 dollars. If the article appears before February 12 2010 I will send you 100 dollars, if it doesn't you will send me 100 dollars. If the article appears before February 12 2011 I will send you 1000 dollars, if it doesn't you will send me 1000 dollars. I'd go for another year but if every single member of this list who had ever opposed me took me up on it and I was proven wrong I might not be able to cover my bets, of course there is not a snowball's chance in hell I am wrong, but it just seems dishonest to me to make a bet you couldn't theoretically cover. Just one other thing, before I accept a bet I must know your real name and how to contact you, and yes, John K Clark is my (boring) real name. I wish I had a name like Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. So place your bets! Put your money where your mouth is! John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Mon Feb 12 22:12:34 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:12:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> "Robin Hanson" > 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as > opposed to misleading experimental technique. One chance in 2 times 10^10 > 2A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, and > indicates fundamental new physics, as opposed to a new chemistry > detail, such as a unexpected molecular structure. One chance in 2 times 10^10 > 1B. The threshold probability for 1A that would justify further > research into CF. One chance in 10^10^10 > 2B. The threshold probability for 2A that would justify further > research into CF. One chance in 10^10^10 John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Mon Feb 12 22:16:58 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:16:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <005a01c74ef1$0bc8eab0$3c064e0c@MyComputer> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101031y61274711hde9a72a2eb2e31ba@mail.gmail.com><20070210184954.GI21677@leitl.org><3cf171fe0702101223t1a3884bdqf57c6677ae95ee1e@mail.gmail.com><005101c74da7$2168ec30$0a054e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070211111725.0220a620@satx.rr.com><006801c74e0c$b600d370$59044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070211130148.02318940@satx.rr.com><002e01c74ec3$ee5eadc0$0f0b4e0c@MyComputer> <45D09A16.4020908@goertzel.org> <005a01c74ef1$0bc8eab0$3c064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2007, at 4:58 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Ben Goertzel" > >> If you haven't even looked at the data, you certainly can't "know >> that >> [you] are right and they are wrong." > > Actually I think I can. Mathematicians often receive "proofs" from > crackpots > claiming to have found a way to square the circle, often these > things are > very long, complex, and in their way almost ingenious. The error in > the > proof is not immediately obvious, but they know it must be there > somewhere > because it was proven to everybody's satisfaction more that a > century ago > that squaring the circle is imposable. Math is qualitatively different than empirical science, though. A disproof of some simple theorem within a well-known formal system is extremely unlikely. The history of math is more a story of incremental build-up, whereas the history of physics is one of repeated conceptual revolutions that actually lead to the disproof of prior conceptual ideas... Ben > There is just no point spending weeks > or months digging out the error, they know immediately it's bullshit. > In the same way the possibility that Joe Blow the truck driver is an > experimental mega genius of such magnitude that he can detect > something > hundreds of world class experimenters have been unable to do for 17 > years is > so astronomically unlikely that yes, I can say with confidence it is > BULLSHIT without reading one word of it. > >> Knee-jerk negative reactions not grounded in research > > There is nothing wrong with knee jerk reactions, it must have a > survival > advantage or Evolution would not have produced it. Some things > require a > great deal of cognitive reflection, and some things do not. Knee jerk > reaction sorts it out. > >> there have been many psi experiments with adequate controls. > > Well then, if the phenomena is real and experiments with adequate > controls > have already proven it, then it's poised to break into the > mainstream. It > must be. Granted mainstream scientists aren't as brilliant as Joe > Blow the > truck driver but they aren't complete imbeciles, at least not every > single > one of them. > > So I issue this challenge to members of this list who do not think > ESP or > cold fusion is a stinking reeking mass of putrid shit; If a pro ESP > or cold > fusion article appears in Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters > before February 12 2008 I will send you one dollar, if it doesn't > you will > send me one dollar. If you want a longer timeframe then this is the > bet, if > the article appears before February 12 2009 I will send you 10 > dollars, if > it doesn't you will send me 10 dollars. If the article appears before > February 12 2010 I will send you 100 dollars, if it doesn't you > will send me > 100 dollars. If the article appears before February 12 2011 I will > send you > 1000 dollars, if it doesn't you will send me 1000 dollars. I'd go for > another year but if every single member of this list who had ever > opposed me > took me up on it and I was proven wrong I might not be able to > cover my > bets, of course there is not a snowball's chance in hell I am > wrong, but it > just seems dishonest to me to make a bet you couldn't theoretically > cover. > Just one other thing, before I accept a bet I must know your real > name and > how to contact you, and yes, John K Clark is my (boring) real name. > I wish I had a name like Eliezer S. Yudkowsky. > > So place your bets! Put your money where your mouth is! > > John K Clark > > > > > > From rhanson at gmu.edu Mon Feb 12 22:25:42 2007 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:25:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <0JDD00IIOFMT3XD0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> At 05:12 PM 2/12/2007, John Clark wrote: > > 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as > > opposed to misleading experimental technique. > >One chance in 2 times 10^10 >... > > 1B. The threshold probability for 1A that would justify further > > research into CF. > >One chance in 10^10^10 Do you understand that if p1A > p1B, then further research *is* justified? Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Feb 12 22:41:49 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:41:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070212164023.0242eec0@satx.rr.com> At 05:12 PM 2/12/2007 -0500, JKC wrote: > > > 2B. The threshold probability for 2A that would justify further > > research into CF. > >One chance in 10^10^10 This is hilarious. Do you understand what you just agreed to? Damien Broderick From jonkc at att.net Mon Feb 12 22:47:31 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:47:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <200702112023.l1BKNI9A009959@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <00b401c74ef7$cdcf44f0$3c064e0c@MyComputer> : "spike" spike66 at comcast.net > This CF discussion is remarkable in its longevity, perhaps the only thread > to exceed in number of posts and length the gun thread that so consumed > ExI-chat a few years ago. This one has had far less personal > recrimination. Yes, but I want people to know that if from time to time I've gotten a bit, ah, excited, it's not that I have lost respect for you, far far from it! When somebody gives me a strong rebuttal I have more respect for them not less. Everybody who has opposed me on this thread had been wrong, every single one of them, but nevertheless none have been downright idiotic, especially not Damien's remarks. He's still dead wrong of course, but he's no idiot. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Mon Feb 12 22:59:47 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:59:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070212164023.0242eec0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00bf01c74ef9$881d18e0$3c064e0c@MyComputer> > This is hilarious. I am delighted I have bought some hilarity into your life. Do you understand what you just agreed to? Yes, I believe I do. John K Clark From sentience at pobox.com Mon Feb 12 23:06:14 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:06:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] EVENT: Vernor Vinge Challenges the Singularity 2/15 In-Reply-To: <380-220072112202952646@M2W019.mail2web.com> References: <380-220072112202952646@M2W019.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <45D0F2E6.1000105@pobox.com> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > "What If the Singularity Does NOT Happen?" Vernor Vinge, Cowell > Theater, Fort Mason, San Francisco, 7pm, Thursday, February 15. "Who cares?" -- my consort, Erin Devereux -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From scerir at libero.it Mon Feb 12 22:51:24 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:51:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org> <006901c74e04$61b8b880$08961f97@archimede> Message-ID: <000301c74ef8$53449d10$cd951f97@archimede> > # I will ask them, at ENEA, about > light water and Joule effects. > I hope they are still alive. > > I think they made these checks, > since the experiment began > in 1996, and ended in 2002 > with that final report (but they > wrote many reports before that one). Yes, they made controls using light water. No production of 4He and excess heat in this case (using that specific setup). I'm still waiting for more informations about Joule heating and cathodes molten during the experimental runs. The first response was: 'One could hardly observe the melting of the stripe unless the system is driven from nucleate to film boiling. This transition occurs at 60 W/cm^2 and this, in our case, requires a specific excess energy of 600 KW/cm^3. That melting cannot be attributed to Joule heating.' Note that the research is still going on and, as you can see, they are using more refined techniques and they are also fabricating special cathodes. http://www.iscmns.org/iccf12/ViolanteICCF12b.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf From jonkc at att.net Tue Feb 13 01:03:09 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:03:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> <0JDD00IIOFMT3XD0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <00e901c74f0a$e25f9290$3c064e0c@MyComputer> "Robin Hanson" >Do you understand that if p1A > p1B, then further research *is* justified? No, I confess I do not understand that. I don't understand that at all. Not one tinny tiny bit. When you are doing one thing that means you are not doing something else. I tend to think there are other more productive things you could doing with your time. Lots and lots of things, before you claim this bullshit for further consideration. Sure you can find lots of people smarter than me, but not on this issue, at least none I've seen. Bottom line, I just do not believe anyone I've seen mentioned has been shown to be more correct than me on this issue. I of course am right, it just goes without saying. Some true egotistical jerks claim to speak in the name of God, but everybody knows only I truly do. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Tue Feb 13 00:04:20 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:04:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> <0JDD00IIOFMT3XD0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <00e801c74f0a$e1da0ee0$3c064e0c@MyComputer> "Robin Hanson" A man I confess I respect a bit, just a tinny bit wrote: (Ok, maybe a tad and a half bigger thant tinny) From Pvthur at aol.com Tue Feb 13 02:00:55 2007 From: Pvthur at aol.com (Pvthur at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:00:55 EST Subject: [extropy-chat] the 's' word Message-ID: In a message dated 2/12/07 4:06:41 PM, sentience at pobox.com writes: > "Who cares?" -- my consort, Erin Devereux > Oh, for crapsake... You're straight?! Well, don't worry about it too much. After all, nobody's perfect. John p.s. - Then again, hell of a last name she's got. johnkennell.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 13 01:38:12 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:38:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0702111417t35294bd2m31b4d8eeeb6d1971@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <697057.21676.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> > On 11/02/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:13:48PM +1030, Emlyn > wrote: > > > > > > Couldn't we darken the atmosphere to > counteract the greenhouse > > effect? > > > Kind of nuclear winter vs global warming... > > > > Instead of investing in cleaner jet fuels, he'd > better > > 1) make them burn dirty, preferrably inject ice > nucleators > > 2) fly high, as high as possible > > 3) long-term, fly with synfuel or cryogenic > hydrogen as fuel, made from > > renewable sources > > > > Global dimming needs a comeback. Huh? I'll pass on dimming the sky on purpose. That will slow plant/algae growth which naturally scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere. Less plant growth means we will have to darken the skies more to compensate for less CO2 turnover, until we are left starving in the dark without solar energy. That's not the outcome I desire. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "If we all did the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves." - Thomas Edison ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Feb 13 02:01:29 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:01:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dust in god's ... er Sauron Eye Message-ID: <380-220072213212993@M2W017.mail2web.com> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/12/54579.aspx -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Feb 13 02:02:02 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:02:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Dust in god's ... er Sauron's Eye Message-ID: <380-220072213222946@M2W021.mail2web.com> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/12/54579.aspx -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange From ben at goertzel.org Tue Feb 13 03:12:46 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:12:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <00e901c74f0a$e25f9290$3c064e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> <0JDD00IIOFMT3XD0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <00e901c74f0a$e25f9290$3c064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <45D12CAE.4070103@goertzel.org> John K Clark wrote: > "Robin Hanson" > > > >> Do you understand that if p1A > p1B, then further research *is* justified? >> > > > > No, I confess I do not understand that. I don't understand that at all. Not > one tinny tiny bit. When you are doing one thing that means you are not > doing something else. I tend to think there are other more productive things > you could doing with your time. Lots and lots of things, before you claim > this bullshit for further consideration. > Hmmmm..... John, I think you should consider asking your doctor to change the dose of your medication... ;-p > > > Sure you can find lots of people smarter than me, but not on this issue, at > least none I've seen. > > > > Bottom line, I just do not believe anyone I've seen mentioned has been shown > to be more correct than me on this issue. I of course am right, it just goes > without saying. Some true egotistical jerks claim to speak in the name of > God, but everybody knows only I truly do. > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Feb 13 03:16:21 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:16:21 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <697057.21676.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <697057.21676.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <55143.86.130.31.99.1171336581.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> The Avantguardian wrote: > Huh? I'll pass on dimming the sky on purpose. That > will slow plant/algae growth which naturally scrubs > CO2 from the atmosphere. Less plant growth means we > will have to darken the skies more to compensate for > less CO2 turnover, until we are left starving in the > dark without solar energy. That's not the outcome I > desire. Does not seem likely. See Vaishali Naik, Donald J. Wuebbles, Evan H. DeLucia and Jonathan A. Foley, Influence of Geoengineered Climate on the Terrestrial Biosphere, Environmental Management, Volume 32, Number 3 / September, 2003 http://www.springerlink.com/content/nffpj86jp0kfyfle/ "Abstract Various geoengineering schemes have been proposed to counteract anthropogenically induced climate change. In a previous study, it was suggested that a 1.8% reduction in solar radiation incident on the Earthrsquos surface could noticeably reduce regional and seasonal climate change from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). However, the response of the terrestrial biosphere to reduced solar radiation in a CO2-rich climate was not investigated. In this study, we hypothesized that a reduction in incident solar radiation in a Doubled CO2 atmosphere will diminish the net primary productivity (NPP) of terrestrial ecosystems, potentially accelerating the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. We used a dynamic global ecosystem model, the Integrated Biosphere Simulator (IBIS), to investigate this hypothesis in an unperturbed climatology. While this simplified modeling framework effectively separated the influence of CO2 and sunlight on the terrestrial biosphere, it did not consider the complex feedbacks within the Earthrsquos climate system. Our analysis indicated that compared to a Doubled CO2 scenario, reduction in incident solar radiation by 1.8% in a double CO2 world will have negligible impact on the NPP of terrestrial ecosystems. There were, however, spatial variations in the response of NPP-engineered solar radiation. While productivity decreased by less than 2% in the tropical and boreal forests as hypothesized, it increased by a similar percentage in the temperate deciduous forests and grasslands. This increase in productivity was attributed to a sim1% reduction in evapotranspiration in the Geoengineered scenario relative to the Doubled CO2 scenario. Our initial hypothesis was rejected because of unanticipated effects of engineered solar radiation on the hydrologic cycle. However, any geoengineering approaches that reduce incident solar radiation need to be thoroughly analyzed in view of the implications on ecosystem productivity and the hydrologic cycle. Keywords Climate change - Geoengineering - Solar radiation - Terrestrial Biosphere - Net primary productivity - Evapotranspiration" -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Feb 13 03:51:41 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:51:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times - The Mind, as it evolves Message-ID: <30354504.1902421171338701981.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Evo Psych as applied to depression. Enjoy. PJ http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-evpsych12feb12,1,1133864.story?coll=la-headlines-health The mind, as it evolves Depression as a survival tool? Some new treatments assume so. By Julia M. Klein Special to The Times February 12, 2007 IN the fall of 2005, psychiatrist J. Anderson Thomson Jr. was treating an 18-year-old college freshman whom he describes as "intensely depressed, feeling suicidal and doing self-cutting." A few years before, Thomson says, he would have interpreted her depression as anger turned inward. But instead he decided that her symptoms might be a way of signaling her unhappiness to people close to her. He discovered that his client's parents had pressured her to attend the university and major in science, even though her real interest lay in the arts. In the course of therapy, he helped her become more assertive about her goals. When she transferred to another school and changed majors, he says, her depression lifted. Thomson based his approach on the idea that depression is not simply a disease to be eliminated, but a way of eliciting support from family and friends. It's a concept derived from evolutionary psychology, a burgeoning field that is starting to influence psychotherapy. Evolutionary psychology sees the mind as a set of evolved mechanisms, or adaptations, that have promoted survival and reproduction. Evolutionary psychopathology ? abnormal psychology through an evolutionary lens ? looks at what has gone wrong. The discipline is so new that "some people would say it hasn't started yet," jokes Randolph M. Nesse, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan, and one of its pioneers. No one paradigm has won universal acceptance. Evolution-based therapies rely on an eclectic mix of techniques, and their effectiveness is still being tested. Some evolutionary psychologists emphasize the benefits of what we label as disorders. For example, Edward H. Hagen, a research scientist at Humboldt University in Berlin, with whom Thomson has collaborated, has argued that depression, suicide attempts and deliberate self-harm are rational bargaining tactics to manipulate others into providing support they might otherwise withhold. Stephen S. Ilardi, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Kansas, suggests that depression results from a "mismatch" between human beings adapted for hunter-gatherer societies and the contemporary world. His therapy ? which he calls "therapeutic lifestyle change" ? emphasizes behavioral remedies, including getting more sleep, consuming more omega-3 fatty acids and increasing social interaction. A third school of evolutionary thought sees mental disorders as the result of an accumulation of harmful genetic mutations ? flaws in the system. Many clinical psychologists remain skeptical of all these divergent evolutionary approaches, as well as efforts to devise treatments based on them. "The idea that evolution is an important determinant of who we are as human beings is unquestionable," says Laurence J. Kirmayer, director of the division of social and transcultural psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal. "The question is, what does our evolutionary history or our theories of evolution tell us specifically about the nature of human problems or about their potential solutions?" Robert A. Neimeyer, a professor of psychology at the University of Memphis, suggests that evolutionary psychology is better at dealing with typical human behavior than with individual variations. He points out, for example, that while we are "evolutionarily wired for attachment," people grieve losses in ways that vary across cultures and individuals. And treatments must take account of those differences, he says. Helpful perspective The recurrence of mental disorders despite the pressures of natural selection is "really a technical question that none of us have a good answer to," says psychiatry professor Nesse, who has written widely on mood disorders. "We're not at a point where every discovery leads to another discovery. We're at a point where a bunch of people are trying to think hard about it." In an article in the November issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Matthew C. Keller, a postdoctoral fellow at the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, and Geoffrey Miller, assistant professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, address why diseases such as depression and schizophrenia persist. The answer, they say, is that they reflect the accumulation of harmful mutations. "There are so many genes that are involved in growing a brain, and each of the genes is vulnerable to mutation in every generation," says Miller, author of "The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature." When too many coincide, illnesses result. One critic, Joseph Polimeni of the University of Manitoba, in Canada, points out that because so many psychiatric disorders have strong environmental triggers, no single explanation can account for all of them. Daniel Nettle, a psychology professor at the University of Newcastle, in England, says he finds the mutation theory persuasive for major disorders such as schizophrenia. But he suggests that other problems, such as addictions, may be outgrowths of the changing social environment ? including modern distractions such as bars and casinos. "For our ancestors, it was quite useful to follow impulses strongly and spontaneously," he says, while today, with temptations to indulge at every turn, "suddenly, [these people] have a disorder." Depression, the most common mental illness, has inspired several theories on its own. "Rank theory," proposed by psychiatrist John Price, sees depression as an adaptation that originally caused losers to withdraw from conflict, avoid further aggression and accept their subordinate status. Hagen has concentrated on the link between depression and social support, while Paul Andrews, a postdoctoral fellow at the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, proposes that depression evolved to help people analyze their problems after a failure. In the August issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Keller and Nesse present studies backing both the Hagen and Andrews hypotheses. They show that depressions triggered by different stresses result in different symptom patterns, suggesting that each developed as a separate adaptation For instance, Keller says, "failures of effort" lead to what he calls a "despondent type of depression," with symptoms such as fatigue, pessimism, guilt, rumination and excessive sleep. "The point is really to quit wasting effort and to conserve energy when the situation has proven itself unpropitious," he says. By contrast, social losses, including bereavement and failed romances, lead to emotional pain, crying and the desire to be with loved ones. Crying may serve as a way of attracting social support, Keller says, and the desire to avoid emotional pain may provide an incentive to care for family members. If we're blocking the depressive symptoms ? through medication for example ? we could be hamstringing the body's defenses, Keller says. New therapies As the theoretical debate continues, some researchers are developing evolution-based therapies. The backdrop to therapeutic lifestyle change, or TLC, is an increase in depressive illness since World War II, Ilardi says. "There's increasing evidence that we were never designed for our sedentary, socially isolated, indoor, sleep-deprived, frenzied, poorly nourished lifestyle," he says. Ilardi combines group therapy sessions with a set of lifestyle changes, each of which has proven effective against depression: aerobic exercise; ingestion of omega-3 fatty acids; light; positive social interaction; substituting activity for rumination; and increased sleep. The goal is for patients to live more like their Paleolithic ancestors. The results of the 14-week regimen so far have been encouraging. In an ongoing study of 79 patients, with two-thirds assigned to his therapy and the rest to a control group treated mainly with antidepressant medication or traditional psychotherapy, Ilardi reports a 74% favorable response, compared with 16% for the controls. Rebecca Ann Foerschler, a 49-year-old homemaker in Lawrence, Kan., with three teenage children, entered the study after friends noticed that she was withdrawing from social and volunteer activities. She says she also experienced chronic fatigue. During the therapy, she says, she "relearned how to walk my dog ? in a more aerobic manner," and now on mild winter days she can "get my sunlight, get my aerobic exercise, and get my dog walked." At the end of the treatment, Foerschler reported an increase in energy and "a feeling of my brain being more clear." She describes herself now as virtually depression-free. Two other new therapies rely on the common-sense notion that normal, adaptive functioning can go awry because of unfavorable life circumstances, including abuse and trauma. Paul Gilbert, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Derby and former president of the British Assn. for Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapies, is developing a regimen he calls "compassionate mind training." Its aim is to help patients who are highly self-critical learn techniques for soothing themselves. The therapy draws on both evolutionary psychology and attachment theory. Certain systems in the mind trigger anxiety and depression, while others soothe and provide feelings of safety ? a capacity that may not develop in people from abusive or neglectful families, Gilbert says. For a pilot study published in December in the journal Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Gilbert recruited nine volunteers already undergoing cognitive behavioral therapy for personality disorders or chronic mood disorders. Therapists explained the evolutionary significance of attachments to the participants and helped them analyze the origins of their self-critical feelings. Participants were taught to feel empathy for their own distress, and then practiced imagining an "ideal of caring and compassion." They kept weekly diaries of their progress. The paper reports "a significant impact on depression, anxiety, self-attacking, feelings of inferiority, submissive behavior and shame" among the six who completed the regimen. In Toronto, Leslie Greenberg, professor of psychology at York University, is testing "emotion-focused therapy," which seeks to replace unhealthy, or maladaptive, emotions with healthy ones. In an article in the summer issue of the Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, Greenberg offers a case study of a woman suffering from major depression, anxiety disorder and interpersonal problems after having been raised by emotionally and physically abusive parents. Greenberg encouraged the woman to engage in imaginary conversations with her parents in which she expressed her feelings about their sadistic behavior. In therapy, the anger she felt, an adaptive emotion, eventually replaced her fear and feelings of worthlessness. "She began to create a new identity narrative," writes Greenberg, "one in which she was worthy and had unfairly suffered abuse at the hands of cruel parents." That emotional rewiring left her "open to learn to love" again, he writes. Shani Robins, president of the Institute for Wisdom Therapy in San Diego, also draws on evolutionary psychology in his therapy ? a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness meditation, training in humility, and psycho-education. Understanding the evolutionary origin of problems can help patients put them in perspective, he says. Fear of heights, snakes and open spaces may have been useful to our ancestors, for example, even if such phobias seem excessive today. Explaining these mechanisms "normalizes the reaction itself, and that's huge," Robins says. "When patients come in, they not only have symptoms ? they're feeling pretty bad about it." In time, they learn to "self-judge a lot less." 'Paradigm shift' Despite some progress in research, Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, associate professor of psychology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, says that not enough evolutionary psychologists are investigating mental illness, and not enough clinical psychologists "are working on developing procedures based on evolutionary understandings ? and testing these out in clinical trials." Much more such testing needs to be done, he says. Thomson, of the University of Virginia, agrees that psychiatry has been slow to adopt evolutionary models. But the situation is changing, he says, as young clinicians are trained in evolutionary psychology. "This is a marvelous paradigm shift," he says. "I think it's affecting very few now, but in time it will affect everybody." From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Feb 13 04:19:45 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:19:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] the 's' word... and the 'c' word In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070212221459.0238b740@satx.rr.com> >In a message dated 2/12/07 4:06:41 PM, sentience at pobox.com writes: > > >>"Who cares?" -- my consort, Erin Devereux > > >Oh, for crapsake... You're straight?! That's not the half of it. Consort: verb: keep company with; hang out with; "He associates with strange people"; "She affiliates with her colleagues" noun: the husband or wife of a reigning monarch verb: harmonize: go together; "The colors don't harmonize"; "Their ideas concorded" verb: run: keep company; "the heifers run with the bulls to produce offspring" noun: choir: a family of similar musical instrument playing together I'm going for Door # 2. Damien Broderick From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Feb 13 05:14:10 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:14:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Richard Clarke about Breakpoint on Colbert Report Message-ID: <12569021.1908971171343650542.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Richard Clarke and Stephen Colbert Part 1 http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=80961 Part 2 http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=80960 "Geeks get it done. Nerds don't." PJ From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Feb 13 05:23:51 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:23:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Steve Pinker on Colbert Report Message-ID: <13638492.1909451171344231514.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> I'm a little down tonight and Mr. Colbert is just the thing to lift my spirits. And Steve Pinker can describe what the brain does in 5 words... Part 1 http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=81914 Part 2 http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=81913 PJ From eugen at leitl.org Tue Feb 13 05:46:04 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:46:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <697057.21676.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc0702111417t35294bd2m31b4d8eeeb6d1971@mail.gmail.com> <697057.21676.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070213054604.GK21677@leitl.org> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 05:38:12PM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote: > > > Global dimming needs a comeback. > > Huh? I'll pass on dimming the sky on purpose. That > will slow plant/algae growth which naturally scrubs Surface water and soil temperatures are far more important for the rate of CO2 fixation than a few % less sunlight reaching Earth surface. > CO2 from the atmosphere. Less plant growth means we > will have to darken the skies more to compensate for > less CO2 turnover, until we are left starving in the > dark without solar energy. That's not the outcome I > desire. Earth is a highly nonlinear system. While our models are getting better there are always surprises. What we need is a good handle on the homeostate knobs. Knowing what is happening and what is going to happen next with sufficient degree of precision is the first step for that. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Feb 13 10:06:05 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:06:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <20070212095424.GY21677@leitl.org> References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070212073314.GA18318@vt11.net> <20070212095424.GY21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <64185B18-548F-4948-AE46-75D5BF5CC0F6@mac.com> On Feb 12, 2007, at 1:54 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 02:33:14AM -0500, Jordan Hazen wrote: > >> This allows for on-stream reprocessing as well, and be fueled by >> uranium, thorium, or other actinides, including transuranic wastes >> from other reactor types. > > There's a nice blog plugging molten-salt thorium as an alternative > to conventional enrichened-uranium reactor: http:// > thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ > > However, the amount of R&D required to develop this into > a commercial reactor is better spent on regenerative energy sources. What sort of regenerative energy do you have in mind that is of sufficient density? IIRC we have enough thorium available to run earth's current energy needs for around 10,000 years. That would seem to justify putting a few our egg[head]s in this basket. Am I missing something? Knowing you I would be very surprised if I wasn't. I look forward to reading what it is. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Feb 13 10:16:20 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:16:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving on (was CF research) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070212095940.03d19ce8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070212095940.03d19ce8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > At 08:31 AM 2/12/2007 -0500, you wrote: >> On 2/11/07, Keith Henson wrote: >>> Have you considered an intermediate step? An intelligence >>> amplifier that >>> could build engineering models and keep track of details would be of >>> enormous help. Not to mention being worth a fortune. Building something generally enough to have a sufficient market for a decent ROI and yet sufficiently intuitive, efficient and useful to precisely the project you are working on now without taking too long out of the schedule to learn the tool is a real trick. How many potential users willing to pay how much for what with what kind of long term maintenance, support and enhancement costs? It might be better to do it with a consortium of interested parties under open source. More of a Cathedral than a Bazaar though. >> >> Can you further qualify "intelligence amplifier"? > > A slide rule is an intelligence amplifier. Computers more so, > Google/Wikipedia etc. I have been working on a space elevator design > recently and the nitpicking details are painful to keep track of. > >> I imagine a concoction of chemicals that when consumed by >> already-smart people, makes them more likely to have periods of >> highly >> lucid creativity and focused output towards a goal. This too >> would be >> worth a fortune, but does not scale as well as computer hardware due >> to the relative scarcity of already-smart people. :) > Hmm. How about drugs that make even less smart people unusually lucid, creative and capable of accelerated learning? - samantha From rbarreira at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 10:19:12 2007 From: rbarreira at gmail.com (Ricardo Barreira) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:19:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <00e901c74f0a$e25f9290$3c064e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <007101c74ef2$f930b700$3c064e0c@MyComputer> <0JDD00IIOFMT3XD0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <00e901c74f0a$e25f9290$3c064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <5df798750702130219u26ca648ard3cd1927fbf33b62@mail.gmail.com> On 2/13/07, John K Clark wrote: > "Robin Hanson" > > > >Do you understand that if p1A > p1B, then further research *is* justified? > > > > No, I confess I do not understand that. I don't understand that at all. Not > one tinny tiny bit. When you are doing one thing that means you are not > doing something else. I tend to think there are other more productive things > you could doing with your time. Lots and lots of things, before you claim > this bullshit for further consideration. > Did you actually read what p1A and p1B represented? From eugen at leitl.org Tue Feb 13 11:57:19 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:57:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <64185B18-548F-4948-AE46-75D5BF5CC0F6@mac.com> References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070212073314.GA18318@vt11.net> <20070212095424.GY21677@leitl.org> <64185B18-548F-4948-AE46-75D5BF5CC0F6@mac.com> Message-ID: <20070213115719.GC21677@leitl.org> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:06:05AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > However, the amount of R&D required to develop this into > > a commercial reactor is better spent on regenerative energy sources. > > What sort of regenerative energy do you have in mind that is of A regenerative energy fine-grained enough to be owned personally, or at least by muncipalities. The idea is both more control for the end user, market fluidity, and of course no transport costs/losses (generation of energy on-site), highly resilient structures (only tiny cells blacked out), etc. An idea technology would be polymer PV foil, which can be rolled out or be an integral part of an inflatable dome. Add solid-state air conditioning (with potable water as output), and you've got the potential for setting up shop anywhere on the planet from the back of a (EV) truck. I think the killer technology is polymer PV panels with a ROI of about current fossils, or similiar. > sufficient density? IIRC we have enough thorium available to run > earth's current energy needs for around 10,000 years. That would > seem to justify putting a few our egg[head]s in this basket. It takes many billions to turn a concept into a reactor product. Assuming the R&D game is zero sum, I'd rather like to see this plugged into novel PV, direct methane oxidation, DMFC and similiar. The nuclear lobby (as well as agriethanol lobby) are already sufficiently powerful to take whatever they want. They need opposing friction, not help. > Am I missing something? Knowing you I would be very surprised if I Not really. I've been recently rereading claims of nuclear-industry friendly sources, which say things like 0.03 $/kWh for France's nuclear electricity, including entire lifecycle (making it comparable with coal). I find that very hard to believe, without further confirmations. http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm says already 0.04 EUR/kWh -- can't say how reliable this is, either. Uranium is clearly not feasible assuming a scaled up world demand, but http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/4956/2802/1600/543356/wastegen1.png http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/4956/2802/1600/688088/wastegen2.png do make a reasonably good case. If for whatever reason cheap PV fails to materialize, Th is certainly an option. > wasn't. I look forward to reading what it is. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 12:09:20 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:09:20 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: <64185B18-548F-4948-AE46-75D5BF5CC0F6@mac.com> References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070212073314.GA18318@vt11.net> <20070212095424.GY21677@leitl.org> <64185B18-548F-4948-AE46-75D5BF5CC0F6@mac.com> Message-ID: On 2/13/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > What sort of regenerative energy do you have in mind that is of > sufficient density? I suspect Eugen is arguing that the same amount of R&D put into increasing the efficiency of solar cells or making them cheaper (if one could "print" them like newspapers they wouldn't be very expensive) and/or efforts to develop catalysts that could enable production of hydrogen from water using solar energy would be better than spending the same amount on thorium reactors. I've never seen any accounting for the amount of money that was spent during the 40's and 50's on reactor development but I suspect it wasn't a small chunk of change. Presumably much of it was done on the Pentagon's dime. If one put $500B into building silicon "refineries" and solar cell manufacturing plants one would see the costs drop through the floor. There is no getting around the fact that building any kind of "reactor" involves a relatively massive complex "plant". Solar to electricity or solar to hydrogen however ultimately involves material only a few hundred nm thick. Spike could sit down and whip out the numbers but I suspect the mass of a thorium reactor plant could cover a significant fraction of the land on the Earth in solar cells. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 14:04:55 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:04:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving on (was CF research) In-Reply-To: <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> References: <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070212095940.03d19ce8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0702130604k465d80b7l5ad736480c642338@mail.gmail.com> On 2/13/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Building something generally enough to have a sufficient market for a > decent ROI and yet sufficiently intuitive, efficient and useful to > precisely the project you are working on now without taking too long > out of the schedule to learn the tool is a real trick. How many > potential users willing to pay how much for what with what kind of > long term maintenance, support and enhancement costs? It might be > better to do it with a consortium of interested parties under open > source. More of a Cathedral than a Bazaar though. I've been thinking along similar lines, and my reasoning is as follows: Suppose you tell the program "sketch a model of a teapot". For this to work, it needs to know what a teapot actually is. The sum and total of the required knowledge base will be far beyond the resources of a single team to assemble. It'll need to be shared; in rough analogy to Google and Wikipedia, the system's effective smarts, its ability to solve problems, will be a function of what it knows by virtue of the input of a great many minds distributed around the world. As a matter of technical principle, a free/shared knowledge base isn't incompatible with a proprietary program, but as a matter of practical fact, it's far more likely to work if the program is also open source. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Feb 13 16:38:03 2007 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:38:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> On 2/12/2007, I asked: >Please, disputants and interested observers, offer (publicly or >privately) estimates or bounds for these four probabilities: >1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as >opposed to misleading experimental technique. >2A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, and >indicates fundamental new physics, as opposed to a new chemistry >detail, such as a unexpected molecular structure. >1B. The threshold probability for 1A that would justify further >research into CF. >2B. The threshold probability for 2A that would justify further >research into CF. For those wanting a scorecard, here is a summary, including my estimate John Clark Chris Hibbert Ben Goertzel Eugen Leitl R. Hanson 1A 5E-11 <5% [.7 , .9] so bad we can't tell 15% 2A 5E-11 negligible >.9 * [.7 , .9] we don't know 2% 1B 1E-(1E10) 5% .01 no answer 10% 2B 1E-(1E10) >negligible 0 no answer 1% The range of estimates is disturbingly wide. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 From ben at goertzel.org Tue Feb 13 17:08:39 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:08:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion Survey In-Reply-To: <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> Message-ID: <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> Some comments on your survey: 1) Judging by his replies, Clark obviously did not take time to review and understand the questions you asked. 2) Also, in future, when doing assessments like this, it may be interesting to ask people how much time/effort they have spent evaluating the issue in question, as a measure of the "weight of evidence" underlying their estimates. All else equal, I generally will value someone else's estimate more if it is based on a larger amount of study on their part. In theory, people should factor this into their own estimates -- e.g. if they give an interval estimate, the interval width should narrow as they accumulate more evidence. But some people might be better at estimating the mean of their estimated pdf than the interval width, in which case one may accept their mean but consider their estimated "subjective weight of evidence" as a possible correction to their stated interval width. -- Ben Robin Hanson wrote: > On 2/12/2007, I asked: > >> Please, disputants and interested observers, offer (publicly or >> privately) estimates or bounds for these four probabilities: >> 1A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, as >> opposed to misleading experimental technique. >> 2A. The probability that CF excess heat is a real phenomena, and >> indicates fundamental new physics, as opposed to a new chemistry >> detail, such as a unexpected molecular structure. >> 1B. The threshold probability for 1A that would justify further >> research into CF. >> 2B. The threshold probability for 2A that would justify further >> research into CF. >> > > For those wanting a scorecard, here is a summary, including my estimate > > John Clark Chris Hibbert Ben Goertzel Eugen > Leitl R. Hanson > 1A 5E-11 <5% [.7 , .9] so bad we > can't tell 15% > 2A 5E-11 negligible >.9 * [.7 , .9] we don't know 2% > 1B 1E-(1E10) 5% .01 no > answer 10% > 2B 1E-(1E10) >negligible 0 no > answer 1% > > The range of estimates is disturbingly wide. > > > Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu > Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University > Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Feb 13 15:45:12 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:45:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving on (was CF research) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0702130604k465d80b7l5ad736480c642338@mail.gmail.co m> References: <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070212095940.03d19ce8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070213102906.039f77c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> snip There are critical industrial processes that just don't lend themselves to distributed solutions. Consider aluminum as an example. An aluminum pot line uses 250,000 amps at 800 volts. That's 0.2 Gw, if the plant has 5 pot lines, it eats a Gw. (Metalic aluminum represents about 40 kwh/kg.) Or consider cement. Last time I looked, grinding clinker to dust was taking 1.5 to 2 percent of the total US generation. And when you are talking about solar cells, remember the cost of the support structures. I have seen 100 nm films and let me assure you that one hail storm would be the end of them. You also have the problem of collecting the current from solar cells. That's something I have been concerned with recently. There are also serious difficulties with storage. Now, much of this goes away with nanotechnology, but if you are talking near term it's a hard problem. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Feb 13 21:38:13 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:38:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> Their website cites today's demo in Silicon Valley's Computer History Museum: http://www.dwavesys.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=4&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01returnid=21 They're still claiming that < Quantum-computer technology can solve what is known as "NP-complete" problems > although critics have shown that this is an excessive claim for their own system. Anyone there at the demo? Damien Broderick From jonkc at att.net Tue Feb 13 22:25:38 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:25:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu><45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > They're still claiming that < Quantum-computer technology can solve > what is known as "NP-complete" problems > although critics have shown > that this is an excessive claim for their own system. If what they say is true then this is HUGE, far bigger than cold fusion would be even if the damn thing worked, which it doesn't. However I have a sneaky hunch the company is exaggerating their progress in this area just a tinny tiny bit, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong. If I am wrong then the Singularity will happen much much sooner than anybody expected, even Eliezer. Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe that's a little too soon; the Singularity will be a meat grinder and I'm unlikely to come out of it in one piece. No matter, it's probably just a PR blurb to boost the company. Probably. John K Clark From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 23:13:58 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:13:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Interesting. I believe D-Wave is funded by DFJ (e.g. with support from Steve Jurvetson). I doubt Steve would have supported D-Wave unless there technology was fairly robust (Steve is on the board at Foresight and is probably one of the brighter VCs in SilVal). However I did point out to him a year or two ago that there seemed to be a proof that there is an upper limit on how long one can maintain QuBits in a coherent state (I think the paper was from someplace in Europe). The consequence being that the more QuBits the smaller the time window one has to establish and maintain the coherent state. That would tend to place some interesting limits on the size of the NP-complete problem that one can ultimately solve with quantum computers in the real world. I do not know whether anyone has attempted to determine these limits to a greater extent. Mind you I have never taken a course or read a textbook dealing with QM and so everything of a technical nature in the above paragraph could be mere gibberish. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Tue Feb 13 22:50:52 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:50:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu><45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000901c74fc1$6aae9fe0$3d911f97@archimede> > Anyone there at the demo? <> See also http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1439 http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=198 But, wait, this seems more interesting ... << I'll pose this puzzler: If quantum computers are more efficient than classical ones then why didn't our brains evolve to take advantage of quantum information processing? >> http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/quantum-brains/ From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Feb 13 19:31:07 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:31:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers I In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0702130604k465d80b7l5ad736480c642338@mail.gmail.co m> References: <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070212095940.03d19ce8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070213104518.03c9d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> I am not sure this is the right place to be discussing this. If anyone knows of a better place, please let me know. If we want a non nuclear solution to the carbon and energy crisis, we need to put some numbers on it. Displacing coal for power generation in the US would take about 300 Gw. That's 30 10 Gw or 60 5 Gw SPS. SPS designs are projected to be in the 1-2 kg/kw range. I.e., a 5 Gw SPS would mass 5,000 to 10,000 metric tons. This business is urgent, so let's figure displacing all the US coal fired plants in about a year. So 360 days/60 plants means we need to build a 5 Gw plant every 6 days. Roughly (and ignoring the short tons to metric tons) figure lifting 10,000 tons every 5 days to GEO or 2000 tons a day. Back in the space colony days Dr. O'Neill used to say that getting out of the earth's gravity was equal to going up a 4000 mile high mountain. I recalculated it from escape velocity and got 3998 miles. Close enough. :-) Approximating GEO to be at escape, and because orbital energy is partitioned equally between velocity and potential, the energy requirement is to haul 2000 tons per day up a 2000 mile high mountain. (The other half of the energy is extracted from the earth's rotation.) Using English units (you can rework it in metric) that's 4 million pounds x 10 million feet or 4 x 10 ** 13. ft-pounds/day, or about 900,000 hp (660 Mw) For reference, the aircraft carrier Enterprise can crank out about 280,000 hp. (210 Mw) So the lift power required is in the range of 2/3rds of a Gw. Climbers using beamed power and electrical motors to go up a cable are in the range of 1% efficient. Which means something like 66 Gw of power would be required to lift the parts for a 5 Gw power sat every 5 days. That's not impossibly bad, the power sat would pay back its lift energy cost in 66 days. (to be continued) Keith From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Feb 13 23:37:17 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:37:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <000901c74fc1$6aae9fe0$3d911f97@archimede> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <000901c74fc1$6aae9fe0$3d911f97@archimede> Message-ID: I'm assuming S.A. is Scott Aaronson but that doesn't ring any bells in my head. Is he a QC wizz kid? R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Wed Feb 14 00:22:17 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:22:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu><45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <45D25639.2040507@goertzel.org> John K Clark wrote: > "Damien Broderick" > > >> They're still claiming that < Quantum-computer technology can solve >> what is known as "NP-complete" problems > although critics have shown >> that this is an excessive claim for their own system. >> > > If what they say is true then this is HUGE, far bigger than cold fusion > would be even if the damn thing worked, which it doesn't. However I have a > sneaky hunch the company is exaggerating their progress in this area just a > tinny tiny bit, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong. If I am wrong then the > Singularity will happen much much sooner than anybody expected, > An effective, scalable specialized quantum-computing-based problem-solver would certainly be really exciting, and that is what these guys claim to have constructed. However, it is a fairly long way from a powerful tool like that to a Singularity ;-) The most direct way I can see a tool like that leading to Singularity is via an AGI being implemented on it and I can tell you that a machine like that definitely does NOT solve all the problems of AGI. Though it certainly would help. For instance, if we had one of their 1000-qubit boxes to play with, then that would cut down the amount of hardware needed to run a mature Novamente system by a couple orders of magnitude ... and would probably save us a dozen man-years of work in accelerating our evolutionary procedure learning and data mining components via clever algorithm tweaking and distributed processing. OTOH, it would possibly take at least an equivalent amount of work to port our algorithms and design to the QC in an effective way ;-) The history of parallel computing shows that porting algorithms to novel computing infrastructures can be trickier than it first appears... -- Ben G > even Eliezer. > > Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe that's a little too soon; the > Singularity will be a meat grinder and I'm unlikely to come out > of it in one piece. No matter, it's probably just a PR blurb to boost > the company. Probably. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From hibbert at mydruthers.com Wed Feb 14 01:04:16 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:04:16 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers I In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070213104518.03c9d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070212095940.03d19ce8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070213104518.03c9d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <45D26010.80107@mydruthers.com> Keith, > This business is urgent, so let's figure displacing all the US coal > fired plants in about a year. That seems extraordinarily aggressive to me. If you're picking an aggressive target in order to show that getting sufficient material to space is possible rather than because you think this is really necessary, I'll be happy to not argue. But if you think we have to "solve the problem" in a year from a standing start, I wonder what evidence you're relying on. I know that lots of people are worried, but I haven't heard anyone saying we'll have lost the battle if we can't figure out how to stop burning coal this decade. Chris -- In Just-spring when the world is mudluscious -- E. E. Cummings http://www.ralphlevy.com/quotes/balloon.htm Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org http://mydruthers.com From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Feb 14 01:32:22 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:32:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <697057.21676.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <710b78fc0702111417t35294bd2m31b4d8eeeb6d1971@mail.gmail.com> <697057.21676.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00c201c74fd8$0169ce30$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Couldn't we dim the sky just over the icecaps so that it would not impact algae growth. I am assuming that the plant life in arctic and antarctic environments is very low anyway. The melting of the icecaps is one of the major threats of global warming anyway. Perhaps by dispersing the darkener at a layer of the atmosphere where dispersion to other areas of the globe would be slow due to less air currents at a specific altitude. >> Huh? I'll pass on dimming the sky on purpose. That will slow plant/algae growth which naturally scrubs >> CO2 from the atmosphere. Less plant growth means we will have to darken the skies more to compensate for less CO2 >> turnover, until we are left starving in the dark without solar energy. That's not the outcome I desire. From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 14 02:11:14 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:11:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers II Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070213161215.02c90da8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> snip >So the lift power required is in the range of 2/3rds of a Gw. >Climbers using beamed power and electrical motors to go up a cable are >in the range of 1% efficient. Which means something like 66 Gw of power >would be required to lift the parts for a 5 Gw power sat every 5 days. That's >not impossibly bad, the power sat would pay back its lift energy cost in >66 days. Still, 1% efficient is awful. Plus the space elevator has to carry a great deal of extra weight in the climbers from photo voltaic cells and motors plus the fact that motors would be slow so it would take a truly massive cable to get high throughput and the transit time would be a week or ten days. Mechanical drives are close to 100% efficient. They have been considered but it takes cable strength exceeding 63 Gpa to run the cable over a pulley at GEO. Most designs have assumed lower strength tapered cables. Last summer it occurred to me that pulleys could give step taper in the number of strands while using a constant diameter cable. This allows the use of cables with strength in the range of 10-15 Gpa and a closed loop of cable in the range of 100 times the 22,500 mile distance to GEO. If the cable can be moved at 1000 mph, then trip time to GEO would be under a day and cable replication in the range of 100 days. There are *many* technical details which would need to be worked out. Bare cable can probably go up and down through the atmosphere at 1000 mph (a 31 foot diameter driver wheel turning at 900 rpm), but material loads and personnel cars probably will have to go up on a variable speed cable to a 50 mile transfer station because of excessive supersonic drag. Fortunately Coriolis force will keep the up and down strands well separated. It may take spraying static charge on the cables to keep them from tangling. The pulleys will need to have the ability to slightly adjust in diameter to keep them at the right altitude. For 1000 mph the driver wheel at the bottom would be 31 feet in diameter turning at 900 rpm. This is a bit faster and a bit larger than the design of the Rotary Rocket engine (720 rpm, 22 feet). Bearings in electrical turbo generators operate for decades at speeds 4 times this high. The g force at the rim is roughly 2700 g. (If I calculated it right.) The cable is so light and under so much tension that slipping should not be much of a problem. The diameter could be doubled in size, reducing the g forces by half, but increasing the air resistance on the driver wheel. Materials have a characteristic rim velocity that has been investigated in the context of rotary pellet thrusters. http://www.star-tech-inc.com/papers/asteroids/asteroids.pdf 1000 mph is about .44 km/sec, which certainly well within the range of common materials. Incidentally, 1000 mph is arbitrary. But the faster the cable moves, the shorter the replication time for hauling up more cable and the higher the throughput. Also the number was picked to make the transit time to GEO under a day. To be continued From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 14 02:27:41 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:27:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers I In-Reply-To: <45D26010.80107@mydruthers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070213104518.03c9d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070212095940.03d19ce8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070213104518.03c9d008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070213211840.039fe620@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:04 PM 2/13/2007 -0800, you wrote: >Keith, > > > This business is urgent, so let's figure displacing all the US coal > > fired plants in about a year. > >That seems extraordinarily aggressive to me. If you're picking an >aggressive target in order to show that getting sufficient material to >space is possible rather than because you think this is really >necessary, I'll be happy to not argue. > >But if you think we have to "solve the problem" in a year from a >standing start, I wonder what evidence you're relying on. I know that >lots of people are worried, but I haven't heard anyone saying we'll have >lost the battle if we can't figure out how to stop burning coal this decade. I didn't mention it, but the build up from starting to when you can turn on the first SPS is going to take 6 years to a decade. It takes 10 doublings to go from a 2 ton/day seed cable to a 2000 ton/day cable. At three doublings per year, that's over three years right there. *Lots* of steps. And of course US coal plants are only part of what you want to displace. Thanks very much for responding. Keith From mfj.eav at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 03:57:08 2007 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:57:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world Message-ID: <61c8738e0702131957k5bd383ben95c220d14749d4ce@mail.gmail.com> Yes I did think that the dark sails was one of the most dangerous and idiotic things one could do with those resources ... but the old solar power satellite concept might be scaled up to a network of collectors....beaming light or energy to modify short, medium and long term meterology. In a post singularity world we might have the computational power to not worry about global warming or cooling because what we really need is controlled global warming and cooling or terraforming and complete meterological control over the major baselines of climate. A dynamic biosphere that is carefully managed can have the best of both.. no polar caps, marginal desert area, snow in a few arctic preserves like everest and all the carbon and water tied up in materials or biosystems. However, for now I think the global warming/cooling debate is based on millions of tunnelvisions and narrow self-centered opinions. Perhaps all those 750 billions USA invested into the military in 2006 will be managed under the advice of Raymond Kurzweil and the singularity dividend will occur. Saving the world could be a heck of a lot of fun though. So I'll repeat the shocker one liner I like to lighten up conversations with.. "I'm all for global warming but................................".and so forth. Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 04:10:42 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:10:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <45D25639.2040507@goertzel.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <45D25639.2040507@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <5366105b0702132010t4b85f992ocb3de9dedc6bfb97@mail.gmail.com> 22:08 Tuesday, 13 February 2007 You can find pictures of the event and the hardware in Steve Jurvetson's Flickr account. The link below leads to one titled "Enter the Matrix." :) http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/389673106/ -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jonkc at att.net Wed Feb 14 07:13:05 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:13:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu><45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com><005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <45D25639.2040507@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <002301c75007$9b501b60$07094e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > if we had one of their 1000-qubit boxes to play with, then that would cut > down the amount of hardware needed to run a mature Novamente system by a > couple orders of magnitude I think it would do a tad better than that. Each time you add a qubit you double the performance of the quantum computer; even with Nanotechnology I doubt there is enough matter in the observable universe to build a conventional computer to equal the performance of a 1000 qubit quantum beast. If what D wave says is true then this is a historic day without rival, but I don't think it's true. Time will tell, if they still aren't selling a working model 17 years from now then I'll know it's bullshit. If it's not bullshit then Holy SHIT! >via an AGI I just don't understand why you use that silly acronym when we already have one that is much better recognized and one third shorter, it's called AI. John K Clark From sebastian at liem.se Wed Feb 14 06:59:28 2007 From: sebastian at liem.se (Sebastian A. Liem) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:59:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <00c201c74fd8$0169ce30$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <710b78fc0702111417t35294bd2m31b4d8eeeb6d1971@mail.gmail.com> <697057.21676.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <00c201c74fd8$0169ce30$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20070214065928.GA28000@se0.liem.se> * Gary Miller (aiguy at comcast.net) wrote: > I am assuming that the plant life in arctic and antarctic environments is > very low anyway. It is not. Constant supplies of nutrients and half-year periods of sunlight makes a vibrant ecosystem. One shouldn't mess with ecosystems one doesn't understand. -- Sebastian A. Liem <> www.liem.se From scerir at libero.it Wed Feb 14 07:34:29 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:34:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com><000901c74fc1$6aae9fe0$3d911f97@archimede> Message-ID: <003d01c7500a$902494c0$91941f97@archimede> > I'm assuming S.A. is Scott Aaronson > but that doesn't ring any bells in my > head. Is he a QC wizz kid? > R. If QC means quantum complexity I would say 'yes'. If QC means quantum computer (hardware) I would say 'no'. Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World Scott Aaronson http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412143 More than a speculative technology, quantum computing seems to challenge our most basic intuitions about how the physical world should behave. In this thesis I show that, while some intuitions from classical computer science must be jettisoned in the light of modern physics, many others emerge nearly unscathed; and I use powerful tools from computational complexity theory to help determine which are which. NP-complete Problems and Physical Reality Scott Aaronson http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502072 Can NP-complete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adiabatic algorithms, quantum-mechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, quantum gravity, closed timelike curves, and "anthropic computing." The section on soap bubbles even includes some "experimental" results. While I do not believe that any of the proposals will let us solve NP-complete problems efficiently, I argue that by studying them, we can learn something not only about computation but also about physics. From rbarreira at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 09:43:39 2007 From: rbarreira at gmail.com (Ricardo Barreira) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:43:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> On 2/13/07, John K Clark wrote: > "Damien Broderick" > > > They're still claiming that < Quantum-computer technology can solve > > what is known as "NP-complete" problems > although critics have shown > > that this is an excessive claim for their own system. > > If what they say is true then this is HUGE Anyone can solve NP problems with current computers, given enough time. Now if you say "solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time" then that would be great, but it's not what they're claiming - they're claiming a quadratic speedup. > I think it would do a tad better than that. > Each time you add a qubit you > double the performance of the quantum computer; > even with Nanotechnology I > doubt there is enough matter in the observable universe to build a > conventional computer to equal the performance > of a 1000 qubit quantum beast. Are you making the common mistake of thinking that a 1000-qubit QC is as powerful as 2^1000 classical computers for all applications? If so, for someone who claims to know so much about what technologies are bullshit and which aren't (i.e. your statements about CF), your knowledge of QC seems to make your other claims much weaker. From jonkc at att.net Wed Feb 14 10:00:33 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:00:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com><005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> "Ricardo Barreira" > Anyone can solve NP problems with current computers, given enough time. Well sure, if time is not an issue. But time is always an issue. > Are you making the common mistake of thinking that a 1000-qubit QC is as > powerful as 2^1000 classical computers for all applications? Please, I beg of you, show me the error of my ways! John K Clark From giogavir at yahoo.it Wed Feb 14 09:42:35 2007 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:42:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World Message-ID: <20070214094235.94594.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> the melting of the icecaps and the resulting excess of water which threatens the environment by damaging or even eliminating our coastal areas and cities could be solved in a more creative way which would give benefits to all the regions involved. Creating new seas and oceans in desert areas by deflecting the extra water in canals to the prepared locations. A new ocean in the sahara desert for example would not only change the area climate, for the better, but will improve the economy creating millon of new jobs and opportunities in a totally abandoned area. New cities with waterfronts , new reclaimed land for agriculture, new resorts will spring from such activity changing the face of an actually useless location. We should face the coming challenges by trasnforming the problems into opportunities A: ExI chat list Inviato: Mercoled? 14 febbraio 2007, 2:32:22 Oggetto: Re: [extropy-chat] Save the World Couldn't we dim the sky just over the icecaps so that it would not impact algae growth. I am assuming that the plant life in arctic and antarctic environments is very low anyway. The melting of the icecaps is one of the major threats of global warming anyway. Perhaps by dispersing the darkener at a layer of the atmosphere where dispersion to other areas of the globe would be slow due to less air currents at a specific altitude. >> Huh? I'll pass on dimming the sky on purpose. That will slow plant/algae growth which naturally scrubs >> CO2 from the atmosphere. Less plant growth means we will have to darken the skies more to compensate for less CO2 >> turnover, until we are left starving in the dark without solar energy. That's not the outcome I desire. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ___________________________________ L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From rbarreira at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 10:15:42 2007 From: rbarreira at gmail.com (Ricardo Barreira) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:15:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> On 2/14/07, John K Clark wrote: > "Ricardo Barreira" > > > Anyone can solve NP problems with current computers, given enough time. > > Well sure, if time is not an issue. But time is always an issue. Thank you for taking the rest of my paragraph out of your quote. > > > Are you making the common mistake of thinking that a 1000-qubit QC is as > > powerful as 2^1000 classical computers for all applications? > > Please, I beg of you, show me the error of my ways! I don't need to, there is plently of information about quantum computing in the web. Ricardo From scerir at libero.it Wed Feb 14 11:11:47 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:11:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org><006901c74e04$61b8b880$08961f97@archimede> <000301c74ef8$53449d10$cd951f97@archimede> Message-ID: <000401c75028$eb9c4730$79931f97@archimede> > Yes, they made controls using > light water. No production > of 4He and excess heat in this case > (using that specific setup). If anyone is still interested in CF, there is a presentation/review (so not a formal paper) about what is going on at ENEA http://www.iscmns.org/asti06/Violante.pdf It is possible to realize that they understand the importance of controls, calibrations, etc. (Dr.Violante was one of the 5 speakers at 'DOE 2004', about CF) From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 11:33:24 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:33:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Can anyone show me how quantum computers *or* AGI apply to the following problems: 1) Protein folding (presumably done through classical molecular dynamics simulations) [1] 2) Nano-part design 3) Nano-system, esp. nanorobot, design These in my book are the *hard* problems. Whether we can crack encryption keys means almost *nothing* IMO relative to a singularity that impacts me in my daily life (e.g. off-the-shelf solutions that stop aging cold for everyone or being able to direct my 10 kg of nanorobots to sustain whatever lavish lifestyle I choose to adopt or starting the process of uploading me into my basement nanocomputer). I do not care if something can solve the seating arrangement at a wedding. I do not care if it can drive a car or write haiku or even pass the turing test. I only care if it contributes to solving those three problems. And for those of you who think the D-wave announcement is *cool* or exciting or even interesting I'd suggest you reexamine what is really important. I personally was much more excited by the Intel 80 core 1.# TF processor [3] because the implications are that with 1000 processors (@ 62,000W) [4,5] I have human brain level computational capacity *and* more importantly we are starting to lean in the direction of processors with different "core mixes" that I think in a few years will lead to large numbers of people running PC + software combinations that make significant contributions to (1) and (2) above. Robert 1. One can see the growth in known structures in the PDB database [2]. Though we have not reached that point yet, I suspect we are within a few years of the protein folding problem largely going away. There is not much in nature that is "novel". Once a sufficient number of protein structures has been determined experimentally (I'd guess from 100-200,000) there will be very few structures in the phase space which do not have a close relative whose structure has already been determined. At that time one will care much less about protein folding because it is the final structure which is of much more significance and with close relatives in the database one will model "structure by similarity" rather than structure by ab initio folding. The computational requirements for structure by similarity are significantly less than the requirements of ab initio folding. 2. http://www.pdb.org/pdb/statistics/contentGrowthChart.do?content=total&seqid=100 3. http://www.intel.com/research/platform/terascale/teraflops.htm 4. The real "breakthrough" will be 1PF @ 100W. At that point human brain level computational capacity will be cheaper than humans (on a power basis). 5. As the chip also appears to be designed so one can stack memory chips on top of the processor it is nice to see Intel is following up on my 10 year old suggestions for 3D chip architectures, e.g. [6]. 6. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Conferences/Extro3/cpu4.jpg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 14 11:59:53 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:59:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: References: <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070214115953.GQ21677@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 06:33:24AM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Can anyone show me how quantum computers *or* AGI apply to the > following problems: > 1) Protein folding (presumably done through classical molecular > dynamics simulations) [1] If QC parallelism is suitable for concurrent sampling of conformation space, or to QM treatment of subsystems or entire system it is very applicable, assuming QC is ever practical. > 2) Nano-part design Parallel sampling of design space, of conformation space, full QM treatment of parts or entire assemblies, all also with above caveat. > 3) Nano-system, esp. nanorobot, design Basically, the same thing as 2). > These in my book are the *hard* problems. Whether we can crack > encryption keys means almost *nothing* IMO relative to a singularity QC, if indeed practical, is a good match for some problems (RSA, via number factoring) but a bad one for others (IDEA, for instance). I doubt QC is useful for brute-forcing most block cyphers, for instance. > I personally was much more excited by the Intel 80 core 1.# TF > processor [3] because the implications are that with 1000 processors I am also quite excited by it (the Cell done right, at last), but it's vaporware. They voiced intent to push this into their mainstream product, but making cores do x86 will make them much fatter. > (@ 62,000W) [4,5] I have human brain level computational capacity The human brain computational capacity is chronically difficult to estimate, and it also involves total amount of bits held, not just bit manipulation rate (a waferful of ring oscillators or adders in 65 nm could be really hard to beat, then). > 1. One can see the growth in known structures in the PDB database > [2]. Though we have not reached that point yet, I suspect we are > within a few years of the protein folding problem largely going away. Protein folding is one thing (and it's not just bottlenecked by the performance, but also by the forcefield accuracy), but the inverse protein folding problem is harder (at the very least it a large resource multiplicator, if ran e.g. by GA, easily a factor of a million). > There is not much in nature that is "novel". Once a sufficient number > of protein structures has been determined experimentally (I'd guess > from 100-200,000) there will be very few structures in the phase space > which do not have a close relative whose structure has already been The catalytic space/antibody diversity seems to be about 100000 IIRC (have to look it up, not sure). > determined. At that time one will care much less about protein > folding because it is the final structure which is of much more The folding pathway is also important, at least in vivo. Also, some structures in vivo are toxic, so it's not the shape, but the surface feature presented that must be kosher. > 5. As the chip also appears to be designed so one can stack memory > chips on top of the processor it is nice to see Intel is following up > on my 10 year old suggestions for 3D chip architectures, e.g. [6]. > 6. > [3]http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Conferences/Extro3/cpu4.jpg I did a very good simile (some things done better, arguably) of Intel's design in about 1996-96, with the ULIW design. Ideas alone are unfortunately cheap, prototyping in a foundry unfortunately far less so. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rbarreira at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 12:06:38 2007 From: rbarreira at gmail.com (Ricardo Barreira) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:06:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5df798750702140406w7299de3cqdcde12d71133b888@mail.gmail.com> AGI can be applied on all those problems of course, what's the doubt about that? (assuming the AGI is tame/friendly enough to solve problems for us, of course) About quantum computing: 1) Protein folding has been proven to be NP-hard. NP-hard is at least as hard as NP-complete, and it's not thought that QC gives an exponential speedup for NP-complete problems, only a quadratic speedup. 2 and 3) If quantum effects are present, I suppose a QC can at the very least help you simulating nano-machinery, which should be useful. More than that, I don't know. On 2/14/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Can anyone show me how quantum computers *or* AGI apply to the following > problems: > > 1) Protein folding (presumably done through classical molecular dynamics > simulations) [1] > 2) Nano-part design > 3) Nano-system, esp. nanorobot, design > > These in my book are the *hard* problems. Whether we can crack encryption > keys means almost *nothing* IMO relative to a singularity that impacts me in > my daily life (e.g. off-the-shelf solutions that stop aging cold for > everyone or being able to direct my 10 kg of nanorobots to sustain whatever > lavish lifestyle I choose to adopt or starting the process of uploading me > into my basement nanocomputer). > > I do not care if something can solve the seating arrangement at a wedding. > I do not care if it can drive a car or write haiku or even pass the turing > test. I only care if it contributes to solving those three problems. And > for those of you who think the D-wave announcement is *cool* or exciting or > even interesting I'd suggest you reexamine what is really important. > > I personally was much more excited by the Intel 80 core 1.# TF processor [3] > because the implications are that with 1000 processors (@ 62,000W) [4,5] I > have human brain level computational capacity *and* more importantly we are > starting to lean in the direction of processors with different "core mixes" > that I think in a few years will lead to large numbers of people running PC > + software combinations that make significant contributions to (1) and (2) > above. > > Robert > > 1. One can see the growth in known structures in the PDB database [2]. > Though we have not reached that point yet, I suspect we are within a few > years of the protein folding problem largely going away. There is not much > in nature that is "novel". Once a sufficient number of protein structures > has been determined experimentally (I'd guess from 100-200,000) there will > be very few structures in the phase space which do not have a close relative > whose structure has already been determined. At that time one will care > much less about protein folding because it is the final structure which is > of much more significance and with close relatives in the database one will > model "structure by similarity" rather than structure by ab initio folding. > The computational requirements for structure by similarity are significantly > less than the requirements of ab initio folding. > 2. > http://www.pdb.org/pdb/statistics/contentGrowthChart.do?content=total&seqid=100 > 3. > http://www.intel.com/research/platform/terascale/teraflops.htm > 4. The real "breakthrough" will be 1PF @ 100W. At that point human brain > level computational capacity will be cheaper than humans (on a power basis). > 5. As the chip also appears to be designed so one can stack memory chips on > top of the processor it is nice to see Intel is following up on my 10 year > old suggestions for 3D chip architectures, e.g. [6]. > 6. > http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Conferences/Extro3/cpu4.jpg > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From rbarreira at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 12:16:49 2007 From: rbarreira at gmail.com (Ricardo Barreira) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:16:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <20070214115953.GQ21677@leitl.org> References: <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> <20070214115953.GQ21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5df798750702140416u2ffe0832n536fa202b0403db8@mail.gmail.com> > QC, if indeed practical, is a good match for some problems (RSA, > via number factoring) but a bad one for others (IDEA, for instance). > I doubt QC is useful for brute-forcing most block cyphers, for instance. QC gives a quadratic speedup on brute-forcing ciphers, which means that if we want to account for quantum computing, we need to double the size of our keys. So QC is not such a big deal for symmetric ciphers as far as I know, but it's still useful. I suppose that if D-wave's QC design is proven to be scalable, it's surely time do starting using AES-256 instead of AES. From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 14 12:49:23 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:49:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <5df798750702140416u2ffe0832n536fa202b0403db8@mail.gmail.com> References: <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> <20070214115953.GQ21677@leitl.org> <5df798750702140416u2ffe0832n536fa202b0403db8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070214124923.GS21677@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:16:49PM +0100, Ricardo Barreira wrote: > QC gives a quadratic speedup on brute-forcing ciphers, which means I had to look it up, wasn't aware of Grover's algorithm. However, one should hasten to add, in theory, in practice nobody has mapped even a single S-Box to a real QC yet. Cascading anything classical sequentially, with the output depending on input with no shortcut would seem to be bad for QC in general, especially if mapping gates to qubits is expensive. And I would really really really like to see even a 256 qubit machine in solid state with a nontrivial amount of iterations before decoherence, even a cryogenic one. > that if we want to account for quantum computing, we need to double > the size of our keys. So QC is not such a big deal for symmetric > ciphers as far as I know, but it's still useful. I suppose that if > D-wave's QC design is proven to be scalable, it's surely time do > starting using AES-256 instead of AES. Actually, there are already hints that a crack for AES in the works (similiar applies to SHA-1, there the evidence is already there), so running AES-256 today is already a good idea. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 14 14:31:00 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:31:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving on (was CF research) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070213102906.039f77c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> <3cf171fe0702110739r1a4b2b62j3530b75aed6254f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070211165025.GE21677@leitl.org> <45CF64BF.7070502@goertzel.org> <20070211200421.GJ21677@leitl.org> <45CF7C61.1040207@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070211163505.03b64828@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070212095940.03d19ce8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0BB0EC9F-2FC3-46EA-8C6C-0E9537AC4F3A@mac.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070213102906.039f77c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070214143100.GV21677@leitl.org> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:45:12AM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > There are critical industrial processes that just don't lend themselves to > distributed solutions. Yes, but residential energy production (whether a methane motor generator, a methane fuel cell, a wind turbine, or a roof/facade PV array) is a problem space which profits exactly from decentralisation, and in situ production. In case of heat-power coupling, the transport losses are easily avoided, and ditto applies to low-voltage, high-current PV power, which otherwise would need up-transformed for transport, with conversion and transport losses. The most real advantage is that's a low-threshold technology. Very different from terrestrial (nanotube) or lunar (aramide) tethers, linear mass drivers or even cheap LEO launches. While I like them, nothing helps like low-tech like insulating a house, using heat pumps and high-efficiency burners, installing solar gardes, thermal solar collectors, and similiar. > Consider aluminum as an example. An aluminum pot line uses 250,000 amps at > 800 volts. That's 0.2 Gw, if the plant has 5 pot lines, it eats a > Gw. (Metalic aluminum represents about 40 kwh/kg.) Or consider > cement. Last time I looked, grinding clinker to dust was taking 1.5 to 2 > percent of the total US generation. Concrete production along with aluminum (and air nitrogen fixation) are a major sinks of energy, and large-scale producers of CO2 (doubly so, if you calcinate carbonates). I don't find these processes particularly sexy, and would frankly wish we would substitute them with something more hi-tech, and greener. > And when you are talking about solar cells, remember the cost of the > support structures. I have seen 100 nm films and let me assure you that You'll notice that houses are typically built to withstand most weather, hail included. It is of course rather expensive to retrofit houses (starting with north-south alignment, for instance, difficult to fix after the fact), but buildings which have designed for energy efficiency and integral power generation do need to be that much more expensive. Consider that most current PV panels are waranteed for 25-30 years, that's a reasonably good life time for a building facade without renovation. > one hail storm would be the end of them. > > You also have the problem of collecting the current from solar > cells. That's something I have been concerned with recently. There are Um, collecting the power is a solved problem. Off-the shelf power electronics for some 3-5 k$ will generate your AC phase-synced to the rest. > also serious difficulties with storage. Conventional power plants have a large thermal inertia, which along with nocturnal demand lull is the reason there's a major overcapacity during nighttime. The demand peak is during day, so if you dump things into the grid you would only need very marginal nocturnal capacities without requiring storage (which is not a huge problem, whether central (reverse hydro, air-pressure cavities) or decentral (electrochemical energy sources, e.g. such as a water electrolyser built into a pressure tank along with a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell which dumps direcly into the electrolyser -- low efficiency maybe, but if PV is an order of magntude cheaper than solar efficiency for a storage cycle is not that important). > Now, much of this goes away with nanotechnology, but if you are talking > near term it's a hard problem. Sufficiently near-term about everything is a hard problem. Redesigning infrastructure towards sustainability is a major effort, and takes time and lots of resources. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 14 17:10:20 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:10:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving on (was CF research) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214115411.03a24de8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:31 PM 2/14/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: >On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:45:12AM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > > > There are critical industrial processes that just don't lend themselves to > > distributed solutions. > >Yes, but residential energy production (whether a methane motor generator, >a methane fuel cell, a wind turbine, or a roof/facade PV array) is a problem >space which profits exactly from decentralisation, and in situ production. >In case of heat-power coupling, the transport losses are easily avoided, >and ditto applies to low-voltage, high-current PV power, which otherwise >would need up-transformed for transport, with conversion and transport >losses. You are thinking of single family suburban housing, not city apartments which start off much using much less energy. >The most real advantage is that's a low-threshold technology. >Very different from terrestrial (nanotube) or lunar (aramide) tethers, >linear mass drivers or even cheap LEO launches. While I like them, >nothing helps like low-tech like insulating a house, using heat >pumps and high-efficiency burners, installing solar gardes, >thermal solar collectors, and similiar. I do many of these things, including insulating plugs for the windows at night. While you are right about it being low-threshold technology, it is beyond the vast majority of people. > > Consider aluminum as an example. An aluminum pot line uses 250,000 > amps at > > 800 volts. That's 0.2 Gw, if the plant has 5 pot lines, it eats a > > Gw. (Metalic aluminum represents about 40 kwh/kg.) Or consider > > cement. Last time I looked, grinding clinker to dust was taking 1.5 to 2 > > percent of the total US generation. > >Concrete production along with aluminum (and air nitrogen fixation) >are a major sinks of energy, and large-scale producers of CO2 >(doubly so, if you calcinate carbonates). I don't find these >processes particularly sexy, and would frankly wish we would >substitute them with something more hi-tech, and greener. If you have any ideas . . . . Short of Nanotechnology, I don't. > > And when you are talking about solar cells, remember the cost of the > > support structures. I have seen 100 nm films and let me assure you that > >You'll notice that houses are typically built to withstand most weather, >hail included. It is of course rather expensive to retrofit houses (starting >with north-south alignment, for instance, difficult to fix after the fact), >but buildings which have designed for energy efficiency and integral power >generation do need to be that much more expensive. Consider that most >current PV panels are waranteed for 25-30 years, that's a reasonably good >life time for a building facade without renovation. I was talking about 100 nm films, not current PV panels. > > one hail storm would be the end of them. > > > > You also have the problem of collecting the current from solar > > cells. That's something I have been concerned with recently. There are >Um, collecting the power is a solved problem. Off-the shelf power >electronics for some 3-5 k$ will generate your AC phase-synced to >the rest. Collecting, not converting. In the context of a 100 nm thick cell, you are going to be looking at fusing currents for the conductive element before the cell gets very large. > > also serious difficulties with storage. > >Conventional power plants have a large thermal inertia, which along >with nocturnal demand lull is the reason there's a major overcapacity >during nighttime. The demand peak is during day, so if you dump things >into the grid you would only need very marginal nocturnal capacities >without requiring storage (which is not a huge problem, whether central >(reverse hydro, air-pressure cavities) or decentral (electrochemical >energy sources, e.g. such as a water electrolyser built into a pressure >tank along with a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell which dumps direcly into >the electrolyser -- low efficiency maybe, but if PV is an order of >magntude cheaper than solar efficiency for a storage cycle is not >that important). > > > Now, much of this goes away with nanotechnology, but if you are talking > > near term it's a hard problem. > >Sufficiently near-term about everything is a hard problem. Redesigning >infrastructure towards sustainability is a major effort, and takes time >and lots of resources. Given the replacement times involved, the energy and carbon crisis isn't likely to hold off long enough. Keith From ben at goertzel.org Wed Feb 14 17:36:40 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:36:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <002301c75007$9b501b60$07094e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu><45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com><005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <45D25639.2040507@goertzel.org> <002301c75007$9b501b60$07094e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <45D348A8.4080604@goertzel.org> John K Clark wrote: > "Ben Goertzel" > >> if we had one of their 1000-qubit boxes to play with, then that would >> cut >> down the amount of hardware needed to run a mature Novamente system by a >> couple orders of magnitude > > I think it would do a tad better than that. Each time you add a qubit you > double the performance of the quantum computer; Even if that is true, which I doubt (I read something about quadratic speedup, not exponential)... ... only some aspects of the Novamente design in particular are amenable to massive parallelization, esp. massive parallelization on a very noisy substrate Of course, radically different AGI designs might be able to more thoroughly exploit quantum computing infrastructure. > via an AGI > > I just don't understand why you use that silly acronym when we already > have > one that is much better recognized and one third shorter, it's called AI. > Because AI, as it's come to be used, is a more inclusive term. AI includes things like Deep Blue, car-driving software, the bioinformatics software I've built for the NIH, etc. It is worth distinguishing as a different category, AI systems that aim at general intelligence (in roughly the sense of the g-factor from psychology) rather than achievement in highly specialized domains. I have come to the conclusion that pursuit of general intelligence and pursuit of specialized intelligence are quite different sorts of science/engineering tasks. There have been some AAAI symposia on "Human-Level Intelligence", a term that tries to get at roughly the same thing as "AGI", but which I don't like because I feel it defines the end-goal too unambitiously ;-) -- Ben From jonkc at att.net Wed Feb 14 17:50:08 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:50:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu><0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org><7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com><005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer><5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com><00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer><5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <006801c75060$9ad0dbd0$30074e0c@MyComputer> Robert Bradbury Wrote: >Can anyone show me how quantum computers *or* AGI apply to the following >problems: > 1) Protein folding Well, at the very least if it were to search through a database of N possible shapes that the protein could fold into it would only take it on average the square root of N steps to find the right one rather that N/2 as in a conventional computer. However you could probably do better than that. A protein in the process of folding is a quantum system and Feynman thought a Quantum Computer would be especially good at simulating that sort of thing; the protein in a sense does the quantum calculation in just a few seconds so it knows how to fold up, Feynman thought there might be a way to harness that wisdom and make a Universal Quantum Simulator. But that was 25 years ago, so far the most spectacular thing a real Quantum Computer has done is factor the number 15. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Wed Feb 14 17:56:52 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:56:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2) In-Reply-To: <000401c75028$eb9c4730$79931f97@archimede> References: <20070210113413.GQ21677@leitl.org><000601c74d36$14b5a5d0$80bd1f97@archimede><20070210182045.GF21677@leitl.org><006901c74e04$61b8b880$08961f97@archimede> <000301c74ef8$53449d10$cd951f97@archimede> <000401c75028$eb9c4730$79931f97@archimede> Message-ID: <45D34D64.7050503@goertzel.org> Interesting stuff! To paste from the Conclusions page: **** Heat effects are observed with D, but not with H, under similar (or more severe) conditions. Heat bursts exhibit an integrated energy at least 10 x greater than the than the sum of all possible chemical reactions within a closed cell. Conditions are required to have a reproducible excess of power: 1) Loading threshold D/Pd > 0.9 (necessary condition). 2) Suitable material to have a reproducible loading above the threshold. 3) Trigger 4) Suitable status of the material to have coupling with trigger. The accordance between revealed 4He and produced energy seems to be a clear signature of a nuclear process occurring in condensed matter. Evidences of isotopic shift and X Ray emission have been observed in the experiments. Experiments reproducibility was significantly improved as a result of material science study. **** -- Ben scerir wrote: >> Yes, they made controls using >> light water. No production >> of 4He and excess heat in this case >> (using that specific setup). >> > > If anyone is still interested in CF, > there is a presentation/review > (so not a formal paper) about what > is going on at ENEA > http://www.iscmns.org/asti06/Violante.pdf > It is possible to realize that > they understand the importance of > controls, calibrations, etc. > > (Dr.Violante was one of the 5 speakers > at 'DOE 2004', about CF) > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From ben at goertzel.org Wed Feb 14 18:00:50 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:00:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45D34E52.8060906@goertzel.org> Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Can anyone show me how quantum computers *or* AGI apply to the > following problems: > > 1) Protein folding (presumably done through classical molecular > dynamics simulations) [1] Seems clear that quantum computing can help with this, as it's a matter of large-scale simulations of quantum processes. > 2) Nano-part design > 3) Nano-system, esp. nanorobot, design > An advanced general intelligence with direct sensors and actuators at the nanoscale would obviously do a much quicker job of creating a Drexlerian molecular assembler than us hairless apes, who interact with the nanoworld only very indirectly. -- Ben From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 18:19:29 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:19:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <45D348A8.4080604@goertzel.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <45D25639.2040507@goertzel.org> <002301c75007$9b501b60$07094e0c@MyComputer> <45D348A8.4080604@goertzel.org> Message-ID: On 2/14/07, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > It is worth distinguishing as a different category, AI systems that aim at > general intelligence (in roughly the sense of the g-factor from psychology) > rather than achievement in highly specialized domains. I have come to the > conclusion that pursuit of general intelligence and pursuit of specialized > intelligence are quite different sorts of science/engineering tasks. I agree. And given the 3 problems I pointed out earlier I have little hope that a good human level or even better than human level AGI, even a self-improving AGI, would be as good at solving those problems as dedicated hardware and software solutions should be. Given the difference that good solutions to those problems would make I'd rather see the emphasis placed on them than on QC or AGI. One interesting question, IMO, would be what *fraction* of the neurons (or power consumed) by the brain is actually dedicated to intelligent thought vs. what fraction is dedicated to storing and retreiving memory, sensory processing, motor control, maintenance of internal state, etc.? Given the way memory trends seem to be going we are going to cross over the memory storage metrics (W/bit or bits/sec) much sooner than we will cross over the computational metrics (instructions/W or instructions/sec). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Wed Feb 14 18:44:57 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:44:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDC00E5LGBHNKA0@caduceus2.gmu.edu> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <45D25639.2040507@goertzel.org> <002301c75007$9b501b60$07094e0c@MyComputer> <45D348A8.4080604@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <45D358A9.8090003@goertzel.org> Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 2/14/07, *Ben Goertzel* > wrote: > > It is worth distinguishing as a different category, AI systems > that aim at general intelligence (in roughly the sense of the > g-factor from psychology) rather than achievement in highly > specialized domains. I have come to the conclusion that pursuit > of general intelligence and pursuit of specialized intelligence > are quite different sorts of science/engineering tasks. > > > I agree. And given the 3 problems I pointed out earlier I have little > hope that a good human level or even better than human level AGI, even > a self-improving AGI, would be as good at solving those problems as > dedicated hardware and software solutions should be. Given the > difference that good solutions to those problems would make I'd rather > see the emphasis placed on them than on QC or AGI. Well, we disagree pretty radically, but that's OK ;-) My view is that the science and engineering problems involved in creating Drexlerian molecular assemblers are gonna be REALLY HARD, and will be most effectively and rapidly solved by a very intelligent artificial mind with nanoscale sensors and actuators. -- Ben G > > One interesting question, IMO, would be what *fraction* of the neurons > (or power consumed) by the brain is actually dedicated to intelligent > thought vs. what fraction is dedicated to storing and retreiving > memory, sensory processing, motor control, maintenance of internal > state, etc.? Given the way memory trends seem to be going we are > going to cross over the memory storage metrics (W/bit or bits/sec) > much sooner than we will cross over the computational metrics > (instructions/W or instructions/sec). > > Robert > From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Feb 14 18:45:41 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:45:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <006801c75060$9ad0dbd0$30074e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> <006801c75060$9ad0dbd0$30074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0702141045p388baf76r82de38add84e3f86@mail.gmail.com> On 2/14/07, John K Clark wrote: > > Well, at the very least if it were to search through a database of N > possible shapes that the protein could fold into it would only take it on > average the square root of N steps to find the right one rather that N/2 > as > in a conventional computer. 128 bytes isn't going to contain a very large database. (More generally, quantum computers won't help with problems - and there are a lot of them - that are more constrained by RAM than CPU speed.) Computational chemistry is something quantum computers would be useful for. But kiloqubit-range machines are only going to be able to simulate systems with a handful of atoms. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Wed Feb 14 18:50:18 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:50:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] D-Wave premiere of 16 qubit processor In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0702141045p388baf76r82de38add84e3f86@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070211181145.03ce6770@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0JDE005TFU7EIR80@caduceus1.gmu.edu> <45D1F097.1090407@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070213153351.02693b20@satx.rr.com> <005101c74fbd$eae88a30$c20e4e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140143p4df8c46jb3f51fbd94c0cdeb@mail.gmail.com> <00e501c7501f$0aab5f80$07094e0c@MyComputer> <5df798750702140215x1a0c8dd2q74d2da4f0b951ffd@mail.gmail.com> <006801c75060$9ad0dbd0$30074e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0702141045p388baf76r82de38add84e3f86@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45D359EA.5040301@goertzel.org> Russell Wallace wrote: > On 2/14/07, *John K Clark* > wrote: > > Well, at the very least if it were to search through a database of N > possible shapes that the protein could fold into it would only > take it on > average the square root of N steps to find the right one rather > that N/2 as > in a conventional computer. > > > 128 bytes isn't going to contain a very large database. (More > generally, quantum computers won't help with problems - and there are > a lot of them - that are more constrained by RAM than CPU speed.) Well put, regarding current QC architectures: and many aspects of AGI are that way (memory rather than processing constrained). However, it's not clear that future QC's won't also help with memory access dominated problems... Ben > > Computational chemistry is something quantum computers would be useful > for. But kiloqubit-range machines are only going to be able to > simulate systems with a handful of atoms. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From seanl at literati.org Wed Feb 14 18:29:56 2007 From: seanl at literati.org (Sean Lynch) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:29:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Multi Homing? In-Reply-To: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <45D35524.7030201@literati.org> Brent Allsop wrote: > > Extropians, > > Do any of you guys "Multi Home" your home network internet connection? > > I currently have Comcast cable as my primary connection, but would like to > include a Quest DSL modem redundant connection to increase reliability and > bandwidth. (Comcast has been down for a week or so twice last year.) > > I would also like to upgrade to gigabit in my home so I can transfer live > video and stuff. > > One possibility I see is getting a ?dual wan? capable router that does ?load > balancing?. There seems to be lots of these out there, but the only one > that supports gigabit on the LAN side seems to be NetGear's FVS124G: > > http://www.netgear.com/Products/VPNandSSL/WiredVPNFirewallRouters/FVS124G.as > px > > But from the reviews this sounds like it might be a very unreliable box? > > Some other friends of mine are saying I should just configure my Linux box > to have several NIC cards and have it handle the WAN connections and NAT > services... > > Are these the only two possibilities? Which of these would be the best for > someone that is not a professional network administrator? And which would > run reliably without having the router crash all the time?? > > Any ideas, tips, or personal success stories would be greatly appreciated? > Personally, I think multihoming a residential network is a waste of time and money, unless you have a "free" wireless network available to use as your backup. IMHO you'd be much better off simply switching to a more reliable ISP. It sounds like your cable infrastructure may be old; my Comcast connection hasn't gone down even once in the almost two years I've had it, but San Jose recently went from having the oldest cable infrastructure in the SF bay area to the newest. Reliability on residential service is really more luck of the draw than anything else. Maybe you get a good copper pair, maybe not. Maybe you're in a neighborhood with decent cable infrastructure, maybe not. And then when it goes down, you're not gonna get much attention either on cable, which ia hard to diagnose, or residential DSL, which is too cheap for the huge telcos to care about. You could try just switching to DSL to see if that has improved reliability, but if you really want "reliable for sure" you should go with a business service like SDSL, business ADSL, or a T1. If you do choose to go with multi-homing, a Linux box is about the most flexible router you can go with. You want to load balance by sending different connections via different paths rather than by round-robining packets, though. In such a setup, your downtime will more likely be caused by the complexity of the network than by ISP issues, though. Also, you need to be able to actually monitor both links independently, say by putting a static route for a particular pair of IPs that you can ping via each provider and pinging each address periodically. My own plan is to have Comcast for my primary connection and use a wireless network I'm helping build for backup. But my servers still live on a T1 line in industrial space in Santa Clara. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 250 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Feb 14 19:19:29 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:19:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214123439.039f5c90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> snip >Incidentally, 1000 mph is arbitrary. But the faster the cable moves, the >shorter the replication time for hauling up more cable and the higher the >throughput. Also the number was picked to make the transit time to GEO >under a day. Space debris and Van Allen belt radiation need to be considered in the context of a space elevator. The space elevator requires a counterweight outside of GEO, the size depends on both the mass of the elevator and the distance the counterweight is hung outside of GEO. Since pieces space debris large enough to cut the cable have to be collected, several ion engine tugs will be needed to move space debris to GEO for counter weight mass. The scope of this effort is not well defined. Also, unless the satellites are maneuverable, nothing below the counterweight can coexist with a space elevator regime. To some extent lower altitude satellites can be hung on the elevator pulley stations, but non maneuverable satellites will eventually run into the cable. Van Allen belt radiation not only presents a radiation hazard to workers, but degrades solar cells and electronics. The total mass of particles in the Van Allen belts is a few kg. There has been a proposal to drain the inner belt, http://www.tethers.com/HiVOLT.html but in any case a project with a daily mass budget 3 orders of magnitude higher that the particle mass in the belt should be able to deal with them. One possible way would be to release gas well below GEO from the elevator into the belts. Enough gas, especially if injected retrograde, would also help deorbit the smaller space debris. To be continued From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Wed Feb 14 18:20:36 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:20:36 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World References: <20070214094235.94594.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45D352F4.1040302@thomasoliver.net> giorgio gaviraghi wrote: >[...] >Creating new seas and oceans in desert areas by deflecting the extra water in canals to the prepared locations. >[...] > That would require quite a desalination effort unless you could get it to rain oceans. -- Thomas From eugen at leitl.org Wed Feb 14 20:37:30 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:37:30 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214123439.039f5c90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214123439.039f5c90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070214203729.GL21677@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:19:29PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Space debris and Van Allen belt radiation need to be considered in the > context of a space elevator. What do you think about the proposed lunar elevator, made from commercial aramide? Much less technically demanding, obviously, both for the material and operation environment (no atmosphere, no orbiting debris, no radiation belts, rather boring statics). Unfortunately it would be at the lunar equator, and thus rather far away from the rim of the Peary crater, which is thought (not completely known at this time) to be permanently illuminated. It is not obvious, what would be easier for launches of lunar material or moon-side fabbed gadgets, linear motors, or a tether. Operating PV-driven capacitor banks in dusty UHV at -50 C to fire solenoids in a sequence (spark gap? semiconductors?) is not a very familiar design space. I'm also completely clueless whether something just barely exceeding lunar escape velocity can be captured by Earth, and how elliptic the resulting orbit would be without further aerobraking or other maneuvres (solar sail, ion drive, simple chemical rocket). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Feb 14 21:20:50 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:20:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Watch "Myths about the developing world (Amazing graphics) (TEDTalks, Hans Rosling)" Message-ID: This item is relevant and interesting both for its content and its presentation technology. Also recommend you check out gapminder.org. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4237353244338529080&pr=goog-sl Watch "Myths about the developing world (Amazing graphics) (TEDTalks, Hans Rosling)" on Google Video 20 min 33 sec - Jul 5, 2006 Description:?With the drama and urgency of a sportscaster, Hans Rosling debunks a few myths about the "developing" world. Rosling is professor of international health at Sweden's world-renowned Karolinska Institute, and founder of Gapminder, a non-profit that brings vital global data to life - Jef Increasing awareness for increasing morality From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 15 00:22:06 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:22:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214192136.039f9e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:37 PM 2/14/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: snip >What do you think about the proposed lunar elevator, made from >commercial aramide? It doesn't matter what I think about it technically, there just isn't any need for it in the context of an SPS deployment scheme that depends on bootstrapping from the ground. Oh, I could make Dr. O'Neill's case for building up an entire space industry and building SPS out of lunar materials. But that's already been judged as too risky simply because of the huge number of steps to making a profit from selling power. snip Keith From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Feb 15 00:17:02 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:17:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Moving on (was CF research) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214115411.03a24de8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214115411.03a24de8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <44126.72.236.102.94.1171498622.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > > I do many of these things, including insulating plugs for the windows at > night. Whooo! Talk a bit about this please. Off list would be fine if you'd like. I've never heard of it. Regards, MB From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Feb 15 01:18:31 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:48:31 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <45D352F4.1040302@thomasoliver.net> References: <20070214094235.94594.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <45D352F4.1040302@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <710b78fc0702141718w14d2e65k71ab80ff9c03cc21@mail.gmail.com> On 15/02/07, Thomas wrote: > > giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > > >[...] > >Creating new seas and oceans in desert areas by deflecting the extra > water in canals to the prepared locations. > >[...] > > > That would require quite a desalination effort unless you could get it > to rain oceans. -- Thomas It'd be ok for it to be a salty sea. Wouldn't this have the potential to create new rainfall in that region, if it were large enough? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Feb 15 03:38:57 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:38:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world References: <61c8738e0702131957k5bd383ben95c220d14749d4ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <033601c750b2$d3cfcc00$640fa8c0@kevin> I saw a preview for some Al Gore movie about climate change. In the preview there was a scene where they showed a computer animation of how the coastlines would shrink with rising sea levels. I presume (which maybe I shouldn;t) that they used actual elevatin maps to create the animation. I was wondering if anyone knew if there was an online simulator somewhere where you could maybe adjust a sliding scale and see the areas that would flood as the sea level increased. It seems like it would be a logical and fairly straightforward thing to create - no more complicated than a flight simulator. But I can't find anything like this. Does anyone know if such a thing is available and if not, maybe someone here is capable of designing it???? ----- Original Message ----- From: Morris Johnson To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:57 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world Yes I did think that the dark sails was one of the most dangerous and idiotic things one could do with those resources ... but the old solar power satellite concept might be scaled up to a network of collectors....beaming light or energy to modify short, medium and long term meterology. In a post singularity world we might have the computational power to not worry about global warming or cooling because what we really need is controlled global warming and cooling or terraforming and complete meterological control over the major baselines of climate. A dynamic biosphere that is carefully managed can have the best of both.. no polar caps, marginal desert area, snow in a few arctic preserves like everest and all the carbon and water tied up in materials or biosystems. However, for now I think the global warming/cooling debate is based on millions of tunnelvisions and narrow self-centered opinions. Perhaps all those 750 billions USA invested into the military in 2006 will be managed under the advice of Raymond Kurzweil and the singularity dividend will occur. Saving the world could be a heck of a lot of fun though. So I'll repeat the shocker one liner I like to lighten up conversations with.. "I'm all for global warming but................................".and so forth. Morris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Feb 15 05:06:03 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:06:03 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moore's Law rocks on Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070214230403.022f9f40@satx.rr.com> http://www.physorg.com/news90661936.html IBM announced a major breakthrough in microchip design that will more than triple the amount of memory contained on a single high-end chip. ... The technology is expected to be a key feature of IBM's 45nm microprocessor roadmap and will become available beginning in 2008. IBM's new eDRAM technology, designed in stress-enabled 65nm SOI using deep trench, dramatically improves on-processor memory performance in about one-third the space with one-fifth the standby power of conventional SRAM (static random access memory). ============== Eugen will now explain why this is completely bogus and irrelevant. :) Damnien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 15 05:26:33 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:26:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214192136.039f9e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214192136.039f9e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070215052633.GT21677@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:22:06PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > It doesn't matter what I think about it technically, there just isn't any > need for it in the context of an SPS deployment scheme that depends on > bootstrapping from the ground. Oh, I could make Dr. O'Neill's case for I think a terrestrial elevator is extremely more demanding, both because of the scale, and of the issues (satellites) you mention. A single launch or a couple is enough to put the required aramide mass into lunar orbit (don't know about the counterweight). The point is whether a linear motor launcher at the north pole (built in place, of course) is easier. The idea is to bootstrap the Lunar pole infrastructure by teleoperation and largely local resources, achieving self-replication closure of unity or above with minimal terrestrial launches. We know that once you're in LEO Moon surface is about half a year away with plasma thrusters, which can't be beat as far as propulsion mass is concerned. Being able to soft-land some 100 kg from a 300 kg LEO package puts the costs down. > building up an entire space industry and building SPS out of lunar > materials. But that's already been judged as too risky simply because of > the huge number of steps to making a profit from selling power. Power alone is not alone a motivator, since this leaves you with a teleoperated industry basis which can grow exponentially. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 15 06:32:39 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:32:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Moore's Law rocks on In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070214230403.022f9f40@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070214230403.022f9f40@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070215063238.GU21677@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:06:03PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.physorg.com/news90661936.html ... > Eugen will now explain why this is completely bogus and irrelevant. :) This is not really Moore, but it's highly relevant! Moore is all about packing four times of the number of widgets in the same area by halving the feature size (cubic scaling for volume). Things beyond Moore (and also von Neumann) are e.g. HPs prototype of nanowire crossbar atop substrate to shrink FPGAs. This is just a new sort of widget in the same feature size class. There's a problem with current CPUs, especially multicores: they run too hot and are chronically memory bandwidth starved. Caches are the culprit: there's a trick of assuming access locality (which of course is a self-fullfilling prophecy, once locked-in), and outsource slower stuff to a hierarchy of progressively slower and slower memory. Register, 1st level cache, 2nd level cache, 3rd level cache, RAM, flash/ hard drive, tape span the range from subnanosecond to several minutes. Register, 1st and 2nd level caches with current technology fit on one die. Unlike DRAMs, which are much simpler (4-layer) processes, CPUs use half a PSE's worth of elements in many layers. Caches are usually built from 6 transistor SRAM cells, which are fat. There are however 1-transistor SRAMs and ZRAMs and a few other things from other vendors which are more compact. IBMs eDRAM cell is very small, has access time of about 1.5 ns (SRAM does 0.8..1 ns) and run really cool. This allows you to either put far more caches on the same area, or do something better still. Intel's terascale prototype uses tiny amounts of SRAM for each of the 80 cores on-die. A next iteration of it is supposed to piggy-back a DRAM die (simpler processes than CPU, but higher density) on top of each core. With embedded RAM, each core could have a few MBytes of real RAM with cache access latency. There would be no need for caches. This reduces latency further, and reduces power density. This also allows ridiculously broad buses (several kBits wide) which allow SIMD parallelism in the CPU. Because there is no off-die memory, no MMU is needed. Memory protection is cheap by address masks, or implicit by message passing (you can only influence memory in the other node by sending a message packet). What makes this a tad difficult (but since the Cell does it and terascale promises to do it there is no alternative long-term) is the need for very small OS kernels. Since each kernel has to be present in each individual node's memory, which is small, there is simply no space for user code left. However, there are some very small (few kBytes) nanokernels available, some of them even using Linux as a wrapper, which allows you to run legacy on at least one (fat) node. Such future architectures are very good news for large simulations (including online virtual game worlds) and of course AI, robotics included. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From dudescholar2 at basicmail.net Wed Feb 14 20:30:59 2007 From: dudescholar2 at basicmail.net (steve) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:30:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Multi Homing? In-Reply-To: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200702141330.59732@192.168.1.1> On Sunday 11 February 2007 6:11 am, Brent Allsop wrote: > Extropians, > > Do any of you guys "Multi Home" your home network internet connection? > > I currently have Comcast cable as my primary connection, but would like to > include a Quest DSL modem redundant connection to increase reliability and > bandwidth. (Comcast has been down for a week or so twice last year.) I've been using a Twin Wan Router XC-DPG502 by Xincom for two years with a Qwest DLS line and radio network via http://www.digis.net/. The Digits was the only type of broadband available when I got the house but a few months later DLS was added. It has only been in the past few months that comcast cable service was turned on to my neighborhood (new house) and I plan to add that and drop the Digits service. The DLS is a 1.5 m unmetered connection and digits is a 1.0 m metered connection. My son did a lot of gaming so I had it set to broadband share 80/20 to keep the Digits under 3 gigs of xfer per month. The downside, some software applications fail on a dual wan router. For example eSignal stock charting software crashes claiming that I'm trying to run two versions of the software. The company has no fix. The see requests coming from two IP address and assume you have two copies running. There might be a way to always force an application to only use one route, but I haven't done the research to figure it out. As a consequence, I've had to reconfigure my router to fallover mode with the DSL as primary and the Digits as the fallover if DSL goes down. DSL fails or goes to a craw about every other month and I do a quick reconfigure to make Digis the primary for a day or two. I also have had problems with DNS requests. The router gives out a DNS address to all the computers on the system (DHCP) and requests comming from computers to the router cause an address translation to the right DNS depending on which of the two lines the data is being routed. Sometimes this hangs and requires a reboot of the computers. I ended up putting the qwest DNS address into the computers directly and this problem went away. When quest dsl goes down, the DNS servers are unaccessible but the computers seem to go happily along somehow getting DNS service from the Digis.net servers. When my children with portables come over and use the network a lot, eventually they run into this problem as well but I just have them reboot instead of trying to configure their computers specifically for my network bugs. > I would also like to upgrade to gigabit in my home so I can transfer live > video and stuff. With connections only as fast as 1.5 M, I didn't see any advantages to gigabit yet on my home network. > One possibility I see is getting a ?dual wan? capable router that does > ?load balancing?. There seems to be lots of these out there, but the only > one that supports gigabit on the LAN side seems to be NetGear's FVS124G: > > http://www.netgear.com/Products/VPNandSSL/WiredVPNFirewallRouters/FVS124G.a >s px > > But from the reviews this sounds like it might be a very unreliable box? > > Some other friends of mine are saying I should just configure my Linux box > to have several NIC cards and have it handle the WAN connections and NAT > services... > > Are these the only two possibilities? Which of these would be the best for > someone that is not a professional network administrator? And which would > run reliably without having the router crash all the time?? I've administered Unix boxes before and I didn't want to deal with configuring linux for this. In any case, I have a utility room where all the electronics in the house converge and where I did all the wiring for ethernet that goes to most of the rooms in the house. To use a linux box, I would either have to have a dedicated box in the utility room or have enough cable runs to the office. > Any ideas, tips, or personal success stories would be greatly appreciated? > > Thanks > > Brent Allsop -- Steve - dudescholar2 at basicmail.net "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before." --Mae West From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 15 08:38:27 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:38:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Multi Homing? In-Reply-To: <45D35524.7030201@literati.org> References: <200702111327.l1BDRBxs014821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <45D35524.7030201@literati.org> Message-ID: <20070215083826.GZ21677@leitl.org> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:29:56AM -0800, Sean Lynch wrote: > Personally, I think multihoming a residential network is a waste of time > and money, unless you have a "free" wireless network available to use as > your backup. IMHO you'd be much better off simply switching to a more It is difficult to see how one would run mission-critical things on residential broadband -- bandwidth at the periphery is both slow, expensive and unreliable. For many things a combination of a (rented) colo (v)server, controlled from residential broadband is best. I can't really beat the 7-fold redundancy of my hoster, with a direct 2 GBit line to DE-CIX. > reliable ISP. It sounds like your cable infrastructure may be old; my > Comcast connection hasn't gone down even once in the almost two years > I've had it, but San Jose recently went from having the oldest cable > infrastructure in the SF bay area to the newest. > > If you do choose to go with multi-homing, a Linux box is about the most > flexible router you can go with. You want to load balance by sending Linux is good, but it is not particularly well-architected. PF and CARP (backported from OpenBSD) are much preferrable. Both http://m0n0.ch/wall/ and http://www.pfsense.com/ (pf standing here either for packet filter, or plain fucking sense, according to the developers ;) run rings around a Netscreen for an order of magnitude lower price (the software is free/libre, you just have to pay for the hardware). Many of the features you simply won't find elsewhere, period. > different connections via different paths rather than by round-robining > packets, though. In such a setup, your downtime will more likely be > caused by the complexity of the network than by ISP issues, though. > Also, you need to be able to actually monitor both links independently, > say by putting a static route for a particular pair of IPs that you can > ping via each provider and pinging each address periodically. There's no need to do any of this manually. pfSense does multihoming and failover with no problems. > My own plan is to have Comcast for my primary connection and use a > wireless network I'm helping build for backup. But my servers still live > on a T1 line in industrial space in Santa Clara. With things like DRAC 5 and IPMI 2.0 in general integrated there is no need to ever know your servers intimately, when things fail (hopefully slowly, since there is redundancy) remote hands installing mailed in parts are much cheaper and easier than travelling to the location physically. With Amazon's S3 and EC2 computation completely becomes scalable, transparent commodity (I still roll my own, because it's cheaper). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Feb 15 08:41:39 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:41:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world In-Reply-To: <033601c750b2$d3cfcc00$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <61c8738e0702131957k5bd383ben95c220d14749d4ce@mail.gmail.com> <033601c750b2$d3cfcc00$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 2/15/07, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I saw a preview for some Al Gore movie about climate change. In the preview > there was a scene where they showed a computer animation of how the > coastlines would shrink with rising sea levels. I presume (which maybe I > shouldn;t) that they used actual elevatin maps to create the animation. I > was wondering if anyone knew if there was an online simulator somewhere > where you could maybe adjust a sliding scale and see the areas that would > flood as the sea level increased. It seems like it would be a logical and > fairly straightforward thing to create - no more complicated than a flight > simulator. But I can't find anything like this. Does anyone know if such a > thing is available and if not, maybe someone here is capable of designing > it???? > I think this is what you want. BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Feb 15 10:53:56 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:53:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070212073314.GA18318@vt11.net> <20070212095424.GY21677@leitl.org> <64185B18-548F-4948-AE46-75D5BF5CC0F6@mac.com> Message-ID: The NY Times has an article today about a soon to be released study from the EPRI (the voice of the electrical industry) that points out how, even with optimistic assumptions, it may be very difficult to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation sources (coal and gas) below their 1990 levels by 2030. Now of course given where it is coming from it should be taken with a grain of salt -- but it does seem to point out how clearly there needs to be significantly more political leadership to get American's focused on this topic. The more interesting aspect of this is that they see renewable energy as rising from 2% to 6.7% by 2030. That seems flawed to me. If the government mandated it I suspect we could take all non-city based residential energy requirements (e.g. suburbia) off grid in a decade. There is *not* a lack of silicon, in contrast to uranium, if we simply decided to use it. I think residential electricity consumption is ~1/3 of the total but if someone has better numbers feel free to correct me. Now, of course the question is "Does this really matter?" What are the odds that we will *not* have robust MNT by 2030? Robert Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/business/15carbon.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Feb 15 11:11:03 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:11:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0702131957k5bd383ben95c220d14749d4ce@mail.gmail.com> <033601c750b2$d3cfcc00$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 2/15/07, BillK wrote: > I think this is what you want. > Interesting. A great application of the mapping software that would have been completely unavailable a decade ago. You have to zoom in quite a bit to see what would go under with a 7m rise in sea level. Where I live is fine (I think I'm at ~200 feet). One does however lose some interesting airports. JFK and Regan (National) almost entirely and significant amounts of Logan and Laguardia. I suspect it would be major ports (Seattle, Oakland, LA, Brooklyn) that would suffer the most as the unloading docks aren't that much above sea level. Oh, and you do lose most of Cape Canaveral and the JFK space center. But if one is willing to compensate for the rise (sea walls, land fill, etc.) most of the U.S. goes untouched (raising of course the problem of how to motivate people to be concerned). It does however look like some places, e.g. the Bahamas, really get creamed. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Feb 15 12:06:35 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:06:35 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world In-Reply-To: References: <61c8738e0702131957k5bd383ben95c220d14749d4ce@mail.gmail.com> <033601c750b2$d3cfcc00$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 2/15/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Interesting. A great application of the mapping software that would have > been completely unavailable a decade ago. > > You have to zoom in quite a bit to see what would go under with a 7m rise in > sea level. > > Where I live is fine (I think I'm at ~200 feet). One does however lose some > interesting airports. JFK and Regan (National) almost entirely and > significant amounts of Logan and Laguardia. I suspect it would be major > ports (Seattle, Oakland, LA, Brooklyn) that would suffer the most as the > unloading docks aren't that much above sea level. > > Oh, and you do lose most of Cape Canaveral and the JFK space center. > > But if one is willing to compensate for the rise (sea walls, land fill, > etc.) most of the U.S. goes untouched (raising of course the problem of how > to motivate people to be concerned). It does however look like some places, > e.g. the Bahamas, really get creamed. > His web site has some caveats about the mapping accuracy at the detailed level and areas outside the US. --------- Quote: There are a number of significant sources of inaccuracy. All of these inaccuracies are optimistic - correcting the inaccuracy would make the consequences of sea level rise look worse. I've made a conscious effort to avoid ad hoc corrections for these effects. If these maps have a purpose, it is to encourage the general public to consider the consequences of global warming. If I were to make corrections that make more bits of the map shaded blue, then I would run the risk of having the whole thing discredited as alarmist. Firstly, the model knows nothing about the tides. Since tidal variation can be 10m or more in some parts of the world, this is a major deficiency. Secondly, the NASA data itself is not very accurate. Jonathon Stott has said that "NASA claims their height data is accurate to +/- 16m with 90% certainty". NASA gathered the data by radar from orbit, so buildings and trees cause a systematic overestimation of the elevation of built-up and forested areas. Thirdly, the NASA data does not extend beyond +/-60 degrees latitude. Its accuracy becomes degraded at the extremes of its range, especially in the Southern hemisphere, I am told. Fourthly, the simulation takes no account of the effects of coastal erosion. I believe that anywhere within a metre or so of daily maximum sea level would be swiftly eroded. So areas which my model shows as future 'coastline' would almost certainly be quickly eroded away. Fifthly, I don't take any account of coastal defences. It's obviously possible to build defences that protect habitable land far below sea level. I've got no way of knowing whether current defences (in Holland, say) are able to withstand an extra +1 metre of mean sea level. I imagine that the impact would depend upon how quickly the oceans rise, and how much money was available for building new defences. Finally, there are areas of the world far from the oceans that are far below sea level. These areas are shown as flooded on my map, where clearly they are not in danger. The area North of the Caspian Sea is the most striking example. End quote --------------- If you want a detailed local view, your best bet is to look at detailed topographical maps for your area and follow the contour lines. Investigating old maps is also interesting. The coastline of England has changed a lot since the Middle Ages. Some areas have been lost to the sea and other areas have been reclaimed. Another point to bear in mind is that if all the ice melts, flooding may only be a small part of the problem. The sea circulation will probably stop, leading to huge climate change effects. BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 15 15:23:10 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:23:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:26 AM 2/15/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: snip >I think a terrestrial elevator is extremely more demanding, both >because of the scale, and of the issues (satellites) you mention. Agreed. >A single launch or a couple is enough to put the required >aramide mass into lunar orbit (don't know about the >counterweight). The point is whether a linear motor launcher >at the north pole (built in place, of course) is easier. Sigh. You need to dig into Tom Heppenheimer's 30+ year old technical work on achromatic orbits. What are you going to launch and where are you going to launch it too? And how are you going to collect it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._A._Heppenheimer >The idea is to bootstrap the Lunar pole infrastructure >by teleoperation and largely local resources, achieving >self-replication closure of unity or above with minimal >terrestrial launches. We know that once you're in LEO >Moon surface is about half a year away with plasma thrusters, >which can't be beat as far as propulsion mass is concerned. >Being able to soft-land some 100 kg from a 300 kg LEO >package puts the costs down. > > building up an entire space industry and building SPS out of lunar > > materials. But that's already been judged as too risky simply because of > > the huge number of steps to making a profit from selling power. > >Power alone is not alone a motivator, since this leaves you >with a teleoperated industry basis which can grow exponentially. To do what? Keith From eugen at leitl.org Thu Feb 15 16:09:47 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:09:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070215160947.GN21677@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:23:10AM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Sigh. You need to dig into Tom Heppenheimer's 30+ year old technical work I was hoping for a resident orbit mechanic, or at least someone who could fire off a Matlab or Mathematica one-liner in a half a minute. > on achromatic orbits. What are you going to launch and where are you going I'm trying to launch 1-100 kg sized packets, preferrably in a rapid-firing sequence somewhere from the lunar north pole just fast enough to reach escape velocity and then be captured by Earth. It might or might not require an aerobraking corridor for capture and/or orbit circularization. This should work, but I'd rather not do the math. > to launch it too? And how are you going to collect it? Not collect, this is supposed to unfold into um-thin PV platforms somewhere in Earth orbit, which do realtime phased array beamforming, tracking rectenna ground stations. There should be several such platforms in line of sight in order that the target illumination is semi-steady. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._A._Heppenheimer > > > >Power alone is not alone a motivator, since this leaves you > >with a teleoperated industry basis which can grow exponentially. > > To do what? To disassemble parts of the Moon and the planetoids into an optically dense circumsolar computational node cloud, as habitats for a solid-state civilization. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Feb 15 16:21:18 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:21:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Energy & Global Warming [was: Partisans and EP] In-Reply-To: References: <65122.86.130.31.99.1171238000.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200702120532.l1C5WmJo011281@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070212073314.GA18318@vt11.net> <20070212095424.GY21677@leitl.org> <64185B18-548F-4948-AE46-75D5BF5CC0F6@mac.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60702150821w43ee0135y9bb160235b679c59@mail.gmail.com> On 2/15/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > What are the odds that we will *not* have robust MNT by 2030? > ### I am guessing 9 to 1. Rafal From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 15 17:41:17 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:41:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215120613.03ab3988@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> snip >I'm trying to launch 1-100 kg sized packets, preferrably in a >rapid-firing sequence somewhere from the lunar north pole just fast >enough to reach escape velocity and then be captured by Earth. Taking "rapid fire" as one per second, my analysis says 3 Mw/kg. So do you need the power of 1, 10, or a 100 locomotive engines? At a kw per square meter, and 25% efficiency, 3 Mw is 12,000 square meters. At a kg/square meter for PV cells and support that's 12 metric tons. (Or 120, or 1200). A useful number to consider is the energy payback time for PV cells. That's from one to three years. http://www.oilcrisis.com/netEnergy/EnergyPayback4PV_NREL.pdf So if your landed package on the moon was able to provide a kw of power and *all* of that was fed into making more PV cells, to get up to a Mw would take 10 doubling times (2**10 ~ 1000), that's 10-30 years. >It might or might not require an aerobraking corridor for capture >and/or orbit circularization. This should work, but I'd rather >not do the math. Sorry, but you really do need to do math and not just on orbital calculations. Keith > > to launch it too? And how are you going to collect it? > > >Not collect, this is supposed to unfold into um-thin PV >platforms somewhere in Earth orbit, which do realtime >phased array beamforming, tracking rectenna ground stations. >There should be several such platforms in line of sight >in order that the target illumination is semi-steady. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._A._Heppenheimer > > > > > >Power alone is not alone a motivator, since this leaves you > > >with a teleoperated industry basis which can grow exponentially. > > > > To do what? > > >To disassemble parts of the Moon and the planetoids into an >optically dense circumsolar computational node cloud, as >habitats for a solid-state civilization. > > >-- >Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org >______________________________________________________________ >ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com >8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > > >*** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** > >, > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > ><0880.0002>>36e5db40.jpgfiles\qualcomm\eudora\keith\attach\Untitled186.ems <0880.0002>> >Untitled186.ems >_______________________________________________ >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: 36e5db40.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2437 bytes Desc: not available URL: From artillo at comcast.net Thu Feb 15 19:50:23 2007 From: artillo at comcast.net (Brian J. Shores) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:50:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world In-Reply-To: <033601c750b2$d3cfcc00$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <005001c7513a$90f58130$640fa8c0@BJSMain> Well, I used to use a program called Vistapro which used actual USGS maps in DEM format that when imported into the program, you could adjust the "sea level", terrain elevation scales, etc. and make it look however you wished before rendering the scene. DEM's are probably still available as well as presumably more advanced programs than ye olde Vistapro. The Al Gore movie is called "An Inconvenient Truth", and I wish everyone would watch it and take it seriously. I used to think that global warming was one of Al's "pet projects" for some kind of election ploy, but after watching the movie I could tell how serious and involved he has been for a good part of his career. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevinfreels.com Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:39 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world I saw a preview for some Al Gore movie about climate change. In the preview there was a scene where they showed a computer animation of how the coastlines would shrink with rising sea levels. I presume (which maybe I shouldn;t) that they used actual elevatin maps to create the animation. I was wondering if anyone knew if there was an online simulator somewhere where you could maybe adjust a sliding scale and see the areas that would flood as the sea level increased. It seems like it would be a logical and fairly straightforward thing to create - no more complicated than a flight simulator. But I can't find anything like this. Does anyone know if such a thing is available and if not, maybe someone here is capable of designing it???? ----- Original Message ----- From: HYPERLINK "mailto:mfj.eav at gmail.com"Morris Johnson To: HYPERLINK "mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org"extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:57 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world Yes I did think that the dark sails was one of the most dangerous and idiotic things one could do with those resources ... but the old solar power satellite concept might be scaled up to a network of collectors....beaming light or energy to modify short, medium and long term meterology. In a post singularity world we might have the computational power to not worry about global warming or cooling because what we really need is controlled global warming and cooling or terraforming and complete meterological control over the major baselines of climate. A dynamic biosphere that is carefully managed can have the best of both.. no polar caps, marginal desert area, snow in a few arctic preserves like everest and all the carbon and water tied up in materials or biosystems. However, for now I think the global warming/cooling debate is based on millions of tunnelvisions and narrow self-centered opinions. Perhaps all those 750 billions USA invested into the military in 2006 will be managed under the advice of Raymond Kurzweil and the singularity dividend will occur. Saving the world could be a heck of a lot of fun though. So I'll repeat the shocker one liner I like to lighten up conversations with.. "I'm all for global warming but................................".and so forth. Morris _____ _______________________________________________ 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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/686 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From artillo at comcast.net Thu Feb 15 19:59:12 2007 From: artillo at comcast.net (Brian J. Shores) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:59:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005501c7513b$c6a45fd0$640fa8c0@BJSMain> Thanks BillK, that's a pretty a cool link. I'm also glad that even with a 14m increase in sea level, my house will be above water! :D -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:42 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world On 2/15/07, kevinfreels.com wrote: > I saw a preview for some Al Gore movie about climate change. In the > preview there was a scene where they showed a computer animation of > how the coastlines would shrink with rising sea levels. I presume > (which maybe I > shouldn;t) that they used actual elevatin maps to create the animation. I > was wondering if anyone knew if there was an online simulator somewhere > where you could maybe adjust a sliding scale and see the areas that would > flood as the sea level increased. It seems like it would be a logical and > fairly straightforward thing to create - no more complicated than a flight > simulator. But I can't find anything like this. Does anyone know if such a > thing is available and if not, maybe someone here is capable of designing > it???? > I think this is what you want. BillK _______________________________________________ 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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/686 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Feb 15 20:30:58 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:30:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SUMMIT: Reviewing the Future - Montreal April 2007 Message-ID: <380-220072415203058984@M2W014.mail2web.com> Summit Meeting of the Planetary Collegium, Montreal, Canada, 19-22 April, 2007 "Network consciousness, telematic interactivity and the media and metaphors of technology and science, have informed the vision of the Collegium since its inception as CAiiA at the University of Wales College, Newport back in 1994. Throughout the subsequent decade, developments in computing, communications, biophysics and cognitive science, hypermedia, telepresence and robotics created challenges in all fields: architecture, performance, dance, narrative, music, as well as the visual arts and design. New discourse was emerging and theory was not to be left behind. In this context, CAiiA-STAR flourished. As the pressure to expand increased, the Planetary Collegium was established, with its CAiiA-Hub in the University of Plymouth, and Nodes in Zurich, Milan and Beijing, with others pending." http://summit.planetary-collegium.net/ Call for Proposals: http://summit.planetary-collegium.net/proposals.html Natasha Vita-More -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web From dmasten at piratelabs.org Thu Feb 15 21:01:30 2007 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:01:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1171573290.5259.367.camel@localhost> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 10:23 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > >I think a terrestrial elevator is extremely more demanding, both > >because of the scale, and of the issues (satellites) you mention. Not to mention the materials science and economics. I'd place the odds of having a terrestrial tether system of any sort operational within the next 20 years at around one in a million. Here is my reasoning: The mechanics of a really long tether requires near perfect carbon nanotube technology (or equivalent). The problem right now is getting the nanotubes with minimal inclusions, at a sufficient length, in large quantities. There are some real challenges here. Then there is the economics: any advances in material sciences towards a tether are also advances toward cheaper rocket launch capability. As best as I can tell, tether systems are only marginally better than current, traditional launch systems, so any improvements to rocket launch vehicles make rockets better than tethers. My bet is on cheap rocket launch, which is why I started Masten Space Systems. With lunar tethers the materials science is at least ready, but again, why would it be cheaper than an L1-moon shuttle? Keep in mind that perturbations from the Earth and Sun make station keeping painful for objects in long term lunar orbits. Dave From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 15 21:53:33 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:53:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers IV Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215155356.03af3c90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> A. Where do you put the anchor point? It has to be on the equator for the most reasonable configurations. The most storm free section along the equator is in the Western Pacific. It happens that the US territorial limits come within a mile of the equator to the south of Baker Island. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Island If the project was to be based legally in the US that might be important. It could be attached anywhere on the equator. The second one might be in Equator, Sumatra, or some location in Africa. Having several as soon as possible is a *good idea.* Even if you clean up all the manmade orbital junk, a flying rock is going to cut it sooner or later. B. What do use for the anchor point? My suggestion is the aircraft carrier Enterprise. Full out, its 8 reactors put out 210 Mw. That's enough to bootstrap up most of the way to the 2000 ton per day level. The Enterprise is to be retired about the time it would be needed for this project so getting the use of it isn't out of the question. C. How do you put up the bootstrap strand. Well, *before* you do, you need to clean out most of the junk in lower orbits, *including* the space station and Hubble. Ion engine tugs remotely operated seem like they would work. There are something like 10,000 pieces, most of them small. Probably 200 tugs, most of them rather small would do the job in a few years. (Small tugs would gather up the small chunks and when they had a large load, meet up with a larger tug. It will be an interesting computational planning project.) Since you need mass for the counterweight, you want to push it out to GEO rather than dump it into the atmosphere. Once the big stuff is out of the way, you put up a few shuttle loads of nanotube string and push it to GEO. Then deploy, stringing pulleys as needed. Brad Edwards: "proposes that a single hair-like 18 metric ton (20 short ton) 'seed' cable be deployed in the traditional way, giving a very lightweight elevator with very little lifting capacity. "Then, progressively heavier cables would be pulled up from the ground along it, repeatedly strengthening it until the elevator reaches the required mass and strength. This is much the same technique used to build suspension bridges. "Although 18 tonnes for a seed cable may sound like a lot, it would actually be very lightweight ? the proposed average mass is about 0.2 kilogram per kilometer. Conventional copper telephone wires running to consumer homes weigh about 4 kg/km." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Feb 15 22:13:35 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:13:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <1171573290.5259.367.camel@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:01 PM 2/15/2007 -0800, Dave wrote: snip >Not to mention the materials science and economics. > >I'd place the odds of having a terrestrial tether system of any sort >operational within the next 20 years at around one in a million. If we never start, the odds are worse than that. >Here is >my reasoning: The mechanics of a really long tether requires near >perfect carbon nanotube technology (or equivalent). The problem right >now is getting the nanotubes with minimal inclusions, at a sufficient >length, in large quantities. There are some real challenges here. Yep. Prices have to come down to cents per kg from thousands of dollars a gram. But nobody has yet given a serious look at the iron process, which looks like (if it works) would cost a few cents per kg to make nanotubes. >Then there is the economics: any advances in material sciences towards a >tether are also advances toward cheaper rocket launch capability. As >best as I can tell, tether systems are only marginally better This puppy is sized at 2000 tons per day capacity to GEO, with the ability to double that in 100 days. The Saturn 5 could put maybe 50 tons in GEO? You thinking about 40 of those a *day*? This thing runs on electric power in the high 90 percent efficient. Is there any way for rockets to do that? >than >current, traditional launch systems, so any improvements to rocket >launch vehicles make rockets better than tethers. My bet is on cheap >rocket launch, which is why I started Masten Space Systems. Ah, well, consider this. If this project is done, there is going to be a *massive* need for rockets and ion tugs for a number of years to support orbital cleaning operations. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Feb 15 22:39:58 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:39:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith Henson wrote: > At 01:01 PM 2/15/2007 -0800, Dave wrote: > > snip > >> Not to mention the materials science and economics. >> I'd place the odds of having a terrestrial tether >> system of any sort operational within the next 20 >> years at around one in a million. > > If we never start, the odds are worse than that. Keith, this is certainly an interesting technical challenge, but what is your thinking on robustness and resilience within the foreseeable socio-political environment? More specifically, this design would seem to present a very high-value target to "terrorists", with multiple failure modes inherently lacking in contingency or fallback methods. Wouldn't this be very much a case of putting some very expensive eggs in a very exposed basket? - Jef From dmasten at piratelabs.org Fri Feb 16 00:25:55 2007 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:25:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1171585555.5259.401.camel@localhost> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 17:13 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Yep. Prices have to come down to cents per kg from thousands of dollars a > gram. But nobody has yet given a serious look at the iron process, which > looks like (if it works) would cost a few cents per kg to make nanotubes. How well does the iron process do in terms of flaws in the fiber? The last presentation I saw on carbon nanotubes was that this was the crux of the problem. > This puppy is sized at 2000 tons per day capacity to GEO, with the ability > to double that in 100 days. The Saturn 5 could put maybe 50 tons in > GEO? You thinking about 40 of those a *day*? Sure, the only why not is $$. If the rocket industry can deliver reusable once-around launch vehicles (like the USAF is asking for), you are looking at 10 tons/vehicle per mission to LEO, mission duration plus turnaround at 4 hours, so 6 per day (3 shifts). Allow a few vehicles out at any time for maintenance, so say 40 launchers. Probably 120 LEO-GEO tugs. I think that puts the whole operation on par with an airline. Launchers and tugs have a cost to build in line with airliners. So, the capitalization required is doable, now. That leaves us with a practical technology problem, which I would submit is much easier than the practical technology problem(s) of a tether. > This thing runs on electric > power in the high 90 percent efficient. Is there any way for rockets to do > that? I have always been under the impression that electric motors are much less efficient than chemical motors. Am I not recalling correctly, or are you talking about a different efficiency rating, or something else? Dave From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 01:12:10 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:12:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215191728.03ac14a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:39 PM 2/15/2007 -0800, you wrote: >Keith Henson wrote: > > > At 01:01 PM 2/15/2007 -0800, Dave wrote: > > > > snip > > > >> Not to mention the materials science and economics. > >> I'd place the odds of having a terrestrial tether > >> system of any sort operational within the next 20 > >> years at around one in a million. > > > > If we never start, the odds are worse than that. > >Keith, this is certainly an interesting technical challenge, but what is >your thinking on robustness and resilience within the foreseeable >socio-political environment? In my view (see the EP memes and war paper) the foreseeable socio-political environment is largely due to a bleak future, largely due to the unfortunate choices we have in the way of energy. Without something to brighten up the future, wars or related disturbances are going to be a big problem--at least till the population fall by some substantial number of billions. Just *starting* on this project might be enough to damp most of the drift toward wars. >More specifically, this design would seem >to present a very high-value target to "terrorists", with multiple >failure modes inherently lacking in contingency or fallback methods. Putting the anchor point at Baker Island deals with most of the possibilities of being attacked. Putting the anchor point on the Enterprise is going to inhibit a considerable number of the others. Getting the major countries to invest in it would not hurt either. The *big* problem is the cable failing and there the most likely reason is for it to be cut by missed space junk. If the big pieces are cleaned up, and you need them for counterweight mass anyway, then it is rather unlikely you are going to cut all strands at once. Brakes and grabbers on the pulley stations plus dumping the loads might prevent a complete failure. Keeping enough cable at GEO to restore the elevator would be a good backup. Cloning the elevator to other locations is also a darn good idea. If anyone has any ideas on how to make this more robust, please speak up. I am not the last reluctant to give credit. Keith Lofstrom contributed the idea of the transfer station at 50 miles. >Wouldn't this be very much a case of putting some very expensive eggs in >a very exposed basket? This isn't a choice really. The only other long term, non-carbon, large scale (centralized) energy solution is nuclear reactors and I recently went into detail about the problems *that* can cause. Keith From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Fri Feb 16 00:28:51 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:28:51 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World References: <20070214094235.94594.qmail@web26208.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <45D352F4.1040302@thomasoliver.net> <710b78fc0702141718w14d2e65k71ab80ff9c03cc21@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45D4FAC3.6060105@thomasoliver.net> Emlyn wrote: > On 15/02/07, Thomas > wrote: > > giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > > >[...] > >Creating new seas and oceans in desert areas by deflecting the > extra water in canals to the prepared locations. > >[...] > > > That would require quite a desalination effort unless you could get it > to rain oceans. -- Thomas > > > It'd be ok for it to be a salty sea. Wouldn't this have the potential > to create new rainfall in that region, if it were large enough? Yeah, inland salt water storage might save some beaches -- cities even. Rainfall in what region? With a steady wind from ocean to mountains advection effects might be predictable. Perhaps such natural circumstances could be found, otherwise one would have a big furniture rearranging job. Preparing a sea bed seems a mammoth undertaking for starters. I'd hate to see fresh ground water polluted with salt. I think the prospect of irrigation water provides a major incentive. -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 02:27:03 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:27:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <1171585555.5259.401.camel@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215203528.03af2ed8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:25 PM 2/15/2007 -0800, you wrote: >On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 17:13 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > > Yep. Prices have to come down to cents per kg from thousands of dollars a > > gram. But nobody has yet given a serious look at the iron process, which > > looks like (if it works) would cost a few cents per kg to make nanotubes. > >How well does the iron process do in terms of flaws in the fiber? The >last presentation I saw on carbon nanotubes was that this was the crux >of the problem. Who knows? It looks good but has not been tried yet. > > This puppy is sized at 2000 tons per day capacity to GEO, with the ability > > to double that in 100 days. The Saturn 5 could put maybe 50 tons in > > GEO? You thinking about 40 of those a *day*? > >Sure, the only why not is $$. If the rocket industry can deliver >reusable once-around launch vehicles (like the USAF is asking for), you >are looking at 10 tons/vehicle per mission to LEO, mission duration plus >turnaround at 4 hours, so 6 per day (3 shifts). Ok, 200 launches a day for the SPS parts. Ignoring mass for the tugs, 1000 launches, 10,000 tons will build a 5 Gw power sat. LOX-Hydrogen for the fuel I presume? What mass ratio? Let me assume 95% and that the payload fraction is half the dry weight. So lifting ten thousand tons will take 400,000 tons of propellant. Give me real numbers and I will recalculate. Ignoring liquefying the gases, what does it take to electrolyze 400,000 tons of water? http://www.stardrivedevice.com/electrolysis.html (a) 1 kWh (kilowatt-hour) equals 1,000 J/sec x 3,600 sec = 3.6 million joules; (b) 237.13 kJ/mole ? 3.6 MJ/kWh = 0.06587 kWh/mole; 400,000 tons of water Google tells me is 362 873 896 000 grams or 20159660889 moles. Which would take 1,327,916,863 kwh to electrolyze. or 1,328 Gwh or 55 Gw days. Given various factors like electrolysis efficiency it would probably take about 100 Gw days (20 days for a 5 Gw power sat) to pay back the energy lift cost. That's not actually bad, but you are up against a *one* day energy payback for the space elevator. >Allow a few vehicles out >at any time for maintenance, so say 40 launchers. Probably 120 LEO-GEO >tugs. I think that puts the whole operation on par with an airline. >Launchers and tugs have a cost to build in line with airliners. So, the >capitalization required is doable, now. That leaves us with a practical >technology problem, which I would submit is much easier than the >practical technology problem(s) of a tether. > > > This thing runs on electric > > power in the high 90 percent efficient. Is there any way for rockets > to do > > that? > >I have always been under the impression that electric motors are much >less efficient than chemical motors. Am I not recalling correctly, or >are you talking about a different efficiency rating, or something else? Electrical power in to mechanical power out is typically 95 % or better for large electrical motors. http://www.energyexperts.org/energy_solutions/res_details.cfm?resourceID=3823&keyword=cheap§or=All Keith From dmasten at piratelabs.org Fri Feb 16 05:46:15 2007 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:46:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215203528.03af2ed8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215203528.03af2ed8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1171604775.5259.470.camel@localhost> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 21:27 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > At 04:25 PM 2/15/2007 -0800, you wrote: > >How well does the iron process do in terms of flaws in the fiber? The > >last presentation I saw on carbon nanotubes was that this was the crux > >of the problem. > > Who knows? It looks good but has not been tried yet. OK, fair enough. I was hopeful that some progress had been made. > Ok, 200 launches a day for the SPS parts. Ignoring mass for the tugs, 1000 > launches, 10,000 tons will build a 5 Gw power sat. > > LOX-Hydrogen for the fuel I presume? Not economically efficient, but I'm guessing kerosene use runs counter to what you are doing, so sure. At any rate, the trade-offs between LOX/LH2 performance and LOX/Kerosene energy density give approximately equal payload to propellant ratios. > What mass ratio? Let me assume 95% With LOX/LH2 you should be able to get 91 or 92% single stage to LEO, current two stage GEO launchers run around 90% or so as well. > and that the payload fraction is half the dry weight. With current technology and the vehicle is designed for re-usability (i.e. safety factors are dominated by fatigue rather than yield strength) payload ends up 1/3 of dry mass. With carbon nanotubes at a cost, availability, and strength for a space elevator you should be able to get much better payload fraction. On a conservative SWAG, a doubling of strength should give about 20% improvement in mass. Modern carbon composites can reach 2 GPa tensile, so 5 doublings gives us the strength necessary for a tether (I think, I have seen numbers from ~50GPa and up, though I'm not sure if this is the nanotube strength or the strength of the composite). If we have a 30 ton dry mass (10t payload, 20t vehicle) with current tech, then with tether-type strength composites we should get 6.6 tons vehicle structures mass lifting 10t. The above is very conservative as the shift from aluminum to carbon composite structures is 20% for a strength of material doubling, but aluminum is isotropic, whereas carbon composites are not, so extra layers of carbon fabric are necessary to make up for this. Since carbon nanotube composites can reasonably be expected to have similar anisotropic material properties as current carbon fibers we do not need to count this again. It may be possible to get up to 40% mass savings for each doubling. Which means a 20 ton vehicle structure would end up as 1.6 tons to lift 10 tons. I doubt this is reasonable though. Engines really want to be made of metals, and they will come to dominate the mass budget. I'd say a 25% improvement for each doubling is most reasonable. That is 4.75 tons structure per 10 tons payload. > So lifting ten > thousand tons will take 400,000 tons of propellant. Give me real numbers > and I will recalculate. > > Ignoring liquefying the gases, Why? Standard industrial processes (liquefying O2 and cracking H2 from natural gas) for making the propellants are much more efficient. > or 1,328 Gwh or 55 Gw days. Given various factors like electrolysis > efficiency it would probably take about 100 Gw days (20 days for a 5 Gw > power sat) to pay back the energy lift cost. > > That's not actually bad, but you are up against a *one* day energy payback > for the space elevator. What is the initial capital outlay required, the amortization period of the elevator, and the maintenance/operation costs? I have found one estimate of ~$10 billion for initial construction. > Electrical power in to mechanical power out is typically 95 % or better for > large electrical motors. Ah. Learn something new everyday. Dave From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Feb 16 05:27:26 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:27:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <20070215160947.GN21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200702160547.l1G5lerw009446@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I have been away on a business trip, caught in that bad storm in the northeast, oy. More later on this, but the issue with a lunar synchronous cable is related to the moon having a tragically slow rotation rate. The earth is in lunar synchronous orbit, if you want to think of it that way. If you calculate the length of the cable to either lagrangian points 1 or 2, the cable needs to be crazy long. Technically it is easier than an earth synchronous cable, but it doesn't have much use methinks. spike PS I spent way too much of my spare time on this trip trying to figure out why Kieth's idea of uranium solution transmutation wouldn't work. I have a sick feeling in my gut that it would work. Which means any sophisticated chemist could make purified plutonium in her basement lab using readily available materials, oy freaking vey. > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:10 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:23:10AM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > > > Sigh. You need to dig into Tom Heppenheimer's 30+ year old technical > work > > I was hoping for a resident orbit mechanic, or at least someone > who could fire off a Matlab or Mathematica one-liner in > a half a minute. > > > on achromatic orbits. What are you going to launch and where are you > going > > I'm trying to launch 1-100 kg sized packets, preferrably in a > rapid-firing sequence somewhere from the lunar north pole just fast > enough to reach escape velocity and then be captured by Earth. > It might or might not require an aerobraking corridor for capture > and/or orbit circularization. This should work, but I'd rather > not do the math. > > > to launch it too? And how are you going to collect it? > > Not collect, this is supposed to unfold into um-thin PV > platforms somewhere in Earth orbit, which do realtime > phased array beamforming, tracking rectenna ground stations. > There should be several such platforms in line of sight > in order that the target illumination is semi-steady. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._A._Heppenheimer > > > > > >Power alone is not alone a motivator, since this leaves you > > >with a teleoperated industry basis which can grow exponentially. > > > > To do what? > > To disassemble parts of the Moon and the planetoids into an > optically dense circumsolar computational node cloud, as > habitats for a solid-state civilization. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amara at amara.com Fri Feb 16 06:57:39 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:57:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: Keith Henson >Space debris and Van Allen belt radiation need to be considered in the >context of a space elevator. There's a debris fragmentation cascade in our future. The debris problem will get a lot worse, quickly, in the near future, in other words. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/06/news/space.php Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 16 07:57:59 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:57:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <200702160547.l1G5lerw009446@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20070215160947.GN21677@leitl.org> <200702160547.l1G5lerw009446@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070216075759.GB21677@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 09:27:26PM -0800, spike wrote: > More later on this, but the issue with a lunar synchronous cable is related > to the moon having a tragically slow rotation rate. The earth is in lunar > synchronous orbit, if you want to think of it that way. If you calculate > the length of the cable to either lagrangian points 1 or 2, the cable needs > to be crazy long. Technically it is easier than an earth synchronous cable, Not nearly as long as the Earth tether, which is, what, 100000 km? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator says a tether from M5 fiber would 6100 tons, including a massive counterweight. > but it doesn't have much use methinks. > > spike > > PS I spent way too much of my spare time on this trip trying to figure out > why Kieth's idea of uranium solution transmutation wouldn't work. I have a > sick feeling in my gut that it would work. Which means any sophisticated > chemist could make purified plutonium in her basement lab using readily Any chemical-technical assistant, actually. Or an undergrad. You probably don't even need a hot cell. > available materials, oy freaking vey. Except for a nuclear reactor, that's not so easily available. I don't think thorium is nearly as regulated as enrichened uranium, so that might be a loop hole. You'd need many tons of thorium, though, and cooling the assembly would take more than a small creek. A deep cave with running water would do fine, because runoff would have time to cool so you won't see it as a hot spot from orbit. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 16 07:54:16 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:54:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <27385.26021.qm@web60512.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > Keith Henson > >Space debris and Van Allen belt radiation need to > be considered in the > >context of a space elevator. > > There's a debris fragmentation cascade in our > future. The debris problem > will get a lot worse, quickly, in the near future, > in other words. > > http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/06/news/space.php If it's any consolation, before we can travel to the stars, we need to develop effective shielding against cosmic rays and space debris at relativistic speeds any ways. Debris at orbital speeds is just good practice. I do agree it is exceptionally problematic for a space elevator. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL From neomorphy at gmail.com Fri Feb 16 11:14:51 2007 From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:14:51 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Save the World In-Reply-To: <00c201c74fd8$0169ce30$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <710b78fc0702111417t35294bd2m31b4d8eeeb6d1971@mail.gmail.com> <697057.21676.qm@web60524.mail.yahoo.com> <00c201c74fd8$0169ce30$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: On 2/14/07, Gary Miller wrote: > > Couldn't we dim the sky just over the icecaps so that it would not impact > algae growth. > Dude, that's where the least solar radiation falls, and has the highest albedo (1) - very little solar radiation (proportionately) is absorbed at the poles. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo Instead of trying to fuck around with dimming the sky, at least first look into increasing albedo, by doing stuff like setting up Hyuuuge mirrors in deserts... This has all been thoroughly researched, tho. It may address "global warming" by cooling the planet, but (1) it won't restore a CO2 balance, (2) it won't necessarily bring us back to the lovely, stable and relatively uncommon stable warmth of the past 8k years, because any change in albedo may create new, unpredictable weather vectors , and (3) it won't win you Branson's cash. As paleoclimatologist Richard B Alley said (or something like it) Global climate is like a drunk: If left alone, a drunk will stay put, but when pushed, he may panic, stagger, fall and break his neck. The global climate is highly sensitive to disturbances and highly unpredictable. Reducing emissions is a pretty obvious way to reduce the chance of a precipitous push. Barring that, if CO2 scrubbing can be done better than the current scrubbers, and someone's willing to foot the bill, it might help to balance things a little... -- Olie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 16 11:39:21 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:39:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <1171604775.5259.470.camel@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215203528.03af2ed8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <1171604775.5259.470.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <20070216113921.GE21677@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 09:46:15PM -0800, David Masten wrote: > > LOX-Hydrogen for the fuel I presume? > > Not economically efficient, but I'm guessing kerosene use runs counter > to what you are doing, so sure. At any rate, the trade-offs between > LOX/LH2 performance and LOX/Kerosene energy density give approximately > equal payload to propellant ratios. There is no reason why an (to be developed) air-breathing scramjet couldn't go most way to LEO, which would need liquid hydrogen (not sure liquid methane would do). Since the packages for lunar bootstrap would be under a ton, a large number of small automatic craft would do. If we're talking about 300 kg packages to LEO (how many of those required for a bootstrap?), current launch methods should be cheap enough. The more local production capacity you install the earlier, the less total mass you need to soft-land (notice that electronics survives artillery launches, so "soft" is basically anything not involving leaving a large glowing crater in the regolith). > On a conservative SWAG, a doubling of strength should give about 20% > improvement in mass. Modern carbon composites can reach 2 GPa tensile, > so 5 doublings gives us the strength necessary for a tether (I think, I I understand the tether design is a pure CNT ribbon 1 m wide, and aready well in touching distance of the theoretical tensile strength. This does strike me as only borderline doable, and perhaps not at all doable. > > So lifting ten > > thousand tons will take 400,000 tons of propellant. Give me real numbers > > and I will recalculate. > > > > Ignoring liquefying the gases, > > Why? Standard industrial processes (liquefying O2 and cracking H2 from > natural gas) for making the propellants are much more efficient. Liquid oxygen is dead easy, liquifying hydrogen (96% from methane reforming, only 4% from water electrolysis) takes 40% of the energy capacity of the product (methane is a bit better). > > That's not actually bad, but you are up against a *one* day energy payback > > for the space elevator. > > What is the initial capital outlay required, the amortization period of > the elevator, and the maintenance/operation costs? I have found one > estimate of ~$10 billion for initial construction. 10 GBucks? Ridiculous. How about one order of magnitude more than that. Or two. 10 TBucks, chump change. > > Electrical power in to mechanical power out is typically 95 % or better for > > large electrical motors. Which is the reason why a linear motor on Luna (2.37 km/s escape velocity at Moon surface) doesn't need reaction mass, just photons and recycled electrons, impulse absorbed directly by the solenoids and thus the Moon. You might not get a 95% of total efficiency, but it will be high. Notice that unlike the 6 kT aramide you don't have to launch the motor. You only launch the actual packets. > Ah. Learn something new everyday. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 16 12:13:06 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:13:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215191728.03ac14a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215095918.03a59768@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215165738.03aa2e48@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070215191728.03ac14a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070216121306.GF21677@leitl.org> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:12:10PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Just *starting* on this project might be enough to damp most of the drift > toward wars. I am sorry, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that. It just looks like a way to put all your golden eggs in one large, very precarious basket. If you're worried about energy, there are some very simple things you could do, most of them even not requiring a lot of cash right away. Mandate a law which implements a price ratchet on oil, via taxes. All the proceeds from the taxes must go directly into renewables. Mandate taxes on long-distance transports which don't come from CO2-neutral sources. Mandate that all new vehicles must be able to handle M90 (10% methanol, 90% gasoline), and all new gas stations and car materials can handle straight methanol, giving a decade or two time for retrofitting existing infrastructure. Mandate a carbon emission cap/1 km for new vehicles. Mandate new buildings to be insulated, and include passive thermal solar and/or heat pumps or geothermal and/or PV and/or wind turbines (vertical or horizontal) as integral part of the building. Use funds from the tax price ratchet. Use funds for R&D into methanol via direct methane oxidation and direct methanol fuel cells and hydrogen reformers. That's off the top of my head, but you already see where I'm aiming at. > Putting the anchor point at Baker Island deals with most of the > possibilities of being attacked. Putting the anchor point on the Anything involving launching a ton of ballbearings on the other side of the Earth with orbit intersecting your ribbon will kill it. A single perforation will cause a catastrophic failure, there is simply no way to put a safety measure because you're at the limit of the tensile strength. Theoretical tensile strength. The real stuff we have now doesn't even come within the touching distance. What about atomic oxygen attacking the ribbon? You'll need to coat it. What about wear from the climbers? You will need to constantly reinforce the ribbon. > Enterprise is going to inhibit a considerable number of the > others. Getting the major countries to invest in it would not hurt either. Getting someone to invest in one giant single point of failure, controlled by whomever is controlling the anchor point, or who can launch a ton of ball bearings on a collision course... sign me up, I guess. > The *big* problem is the cable failing and there the most likely reason is > for it to be cut by missed space junk. If the big pieces are cleaned up, > and you need them for counterweight mass anyway, then it is rather unlikely > you are going to cut all strands at once. Brakes and grabbers on the > pulley stations plus dumping the loads might prevent a complete > failure. Keeping enough cable at GEO to restore the elevator would be a > good backup. Cloning the elevator to other locations is also a darn good idea. > > If anyone has any ideas on how to make this more robust, please speak > up. I am not the last reluctant to give credit. Keith Lofstrom > contributed the idea of the transfer station at 50 miles. I would be very interested to see in suggestions, because I can't think of none that can be trivially circumvented. The guy with a kg of C4 is really not your problem. > >Wouldn't this be very much a case of putting some very expensive eggs in > >a very exposed basket? > > This isn't a choice really. The only other long term, non-carbon, large > scale (centralized) energy solution is nuclear reactors and I recently went I hope we'll never see the nuclear lobby latch upon nuclear (not even thorium, because that would mean too much novelty for enrichened uranium/MOX folks) and the agrilobby upon bioethanol. > into detail about the problems *that* can cause. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Fri Feb 16 12:13:40 2007 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:13:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <671092.57491.qm@web26203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I believe that something is extremely flawed on this entire concept. While I strongly agree that a space elevator could certainly be a benefit in a long run strategy for space missions, I also believe that our strategical approach to space development is wrong and that is the cause of all the major setbacks that we have since the Apollo days. Our entire space strategy is based in sending,for now very limited payloads at unaffordable costs from the bottom of a deep gravity well, The earth, to other gravity wells, Moon or Mars . The new Vision plans, Orion and Ares are nothing more than a revised Apollo and Saturn missions , fifty years later , putting aside all the experience and knowhow that the shuttle and ISS, despite their basically failure, has obtained. Let's suppose that we are a Kardashev 3 society. How would they approach the development of a new planetary system? They would be coming with a "mother ship" with all their knowhow aand technology , they would utilize the most easily available materials for their requirements (comets and asteroids without costly gravity wells) and would deploy the required missions , first unmanned ,later , if possible, manned to the most interesting bodies. We are not yet at Kardashev 1 level, we don't have a Mother ship and everything must come from the bottom of a deep gravity well: So what it means all the above? it means that we could develop the same capability , changing our startegy from the current earth-based to a new space based approach. That can be done in the following phases: Phase 1-Rendez vous with a small ( 100 m ) water rich NEO asteroid mine it and utilize its minerals to manufacture , automatically, an exostructure of adequate size once the exostructure is ready and propertly attached to the asteroid in such a way that a virtual line , connecting its ends, pass through the baricenter of the entire system, send a mission with two deflection nuclear electric engines and install them in the exostructure Fire the engines and deflect the asteroid in an cyclical earth-Moon orbit. Phase 2- build an embryonic mother ship While close to earth , send manned missions and build a station utilizing the AstroHab system or similar utilizing mostly in-situ materials. Once that is ready, only 3 missions will be needed for that task, we will have an affordable earthMoon trasnportation system base all future Moon missions in such system allowing manned Moon landings , contruction of a lunar base and developing a lunar technology. About ten years could be necessary to build up the lunar infrstructure and , building a retriever exostructure, capture other Neos and put them in needed trajactories to build another permanent EarthMoon transportation system Phase 3- Repeat the same procedure on the earth-Mars cycling trajectory, in the meantime adding and improving the NEO's station by building a bigger manned settlement Phase 4- Same for trans Mars missions with the due infarstructures and technology being developed in the NEO settlement. It has been estimated that such system would jump start a space economy and develop the Moon and Mars at a 90% cost reduction compared to traditional earth based and centered approach, time needed will also be reduced by 70%. The above concept, named Proyecto EVA (Eva being the first biblical "mother" ) is currently being conceptually designed in latin America and the first results and renderings will be available shortly for papers to be delivered at main space conventions. ----- Messaggio originale ----- Da: David Masten A: ExI chat list Inviato: Venerd? 16 febbraio 2007, 1:25:55 Oggetto: Re: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 17:13 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Yep. Prices have to come down to cents per kg from thousands of dollars a > gram. But nobody has yet given a serious look at the iron process, which > looks like (if it works) would cost a few cents per kg to make nanotubes. How well does the iron process do in terms of flaws in the fiber? The last presentation I saw on carbon nanotubes was that this was the crux of the problem. > This puppy is sized at 2000 tons per day capacity to GEO, with the ability > to double that in 100 days. The Saturn 5 could put maybe 50 tons in > GEO? You thinking about 40 of those a *day*? Sure, the only why not is $$. If the rocket industry can deliver reusable once-around launch vehicles (like the USAF is asking for), you are looking at 10 tons/vehicle per mission to LEO, mission duration plus turnaround at 4 hours, so 6 per day (3 shifts). Allow a few vehicles out at any time for maintenance, so say 40 launchers. Probably 120 LEO-GEO tugs. I think that puts the whole operation on par with an airline. Launchers and tugs have a cost to build in line with airliners. So, the capitalization required is doable, now. That leaves us with a practical technology problem, which I would submit is much easier than the practical technology problem(s) of a tether. > This thing runs on electric > power in the high 90 percent efficient. Is there any way for rockets to do > that? I have always been under the impression that electric motors are much less efficient than chemical motors. Am I not recalling correctly, or are you talking about a different efficiency rating, or something else? Dave _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ___________________________________ L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 13:17:12 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:17:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <200702160547.l1G5lerw009446@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <20070215160947.GN21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216081358.038c63e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:27 PM 2/15/2007 -0800, spike wrote: snip >PS I spent way too much of my spare time on this trip trying to figure out >why Kieth's idea of uranium solution transmutation wouldn't work. I have a >sick feeling in my gut that it would work. Which means any sophisticated >chemist could make purified plutonium in her basement lab using readily >available materials, oy freaking vey. Not unless she has a pipe into the middle of a power reactor. Of course if her basement lab was under a reactor . . .. To my mild surprise, this does not seem to have spread beyond the list. Keith From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 16 13:28:07 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:28:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216081358.038c63e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20070215160947.GN21677@leitl.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070216081358.038c63e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070216132807.GI21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 08:17:12AM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Not unless she has a pipe into the middle of a power reactor. Of course if > her basement lab was under a reactor . . .. > > To my mild surprise, this does not seem to have spread beyond the list. It's certainly mentioned in the Sensitive Subjects List from 2001 http://www.lbl.gov/ehs/security/ufva/doc/Sen_Subj_List.pdf It is a neat idea, but it is a straightforward idea. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 16 13:51:41 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:51:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <671092.57491.qm@web26203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <671092.57491.qm@web26203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070216135140.GK21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:13:40PM +0000, giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > So what it means all the above? > it means that we could develop the same capability , changing our startegy from the current earth-based to a new space based approach. > That can be done in the following phases: > Phase 1-Rendez vous with a small ( 100 m ) water rich NEO asteroid > mine it and utilize its minerals to manufacture , automatically, an exostructure of adequate size Excellent idea, but for a couple of serious issues. The velocity delta for all the known planetoids is high. Microgravity work is different from gravity work. The distance is too long for teleoperation by closed loop motorics (already with the Moon one has to train operators for the delay, and augment them with system-side reflexes). There is no reason not to use the Moon (we're not as lucky as Mars with Phobos and Deimos), and to not send astronauts. I can teleoperate a platform via the Internet much more efficiently than a zero-volume-delta life support system. Even on-site, it would be much more efficient to keep people in the pressurized cabin while the teleoperated robots roam the lunar landscape. Long-term, people have to future in deep space. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From giogavir at yahoo.it Fri Feb 16 14:11:54 2007 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:11:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <20070216141154.8420.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> If robotics systems are still unavailable and sophidticated enough we wil need a manned mision but that means higher costs and payloads Still is much less expensive to reach a NEO than the Moon, being a gravity well We have all what we need at reachable lenght, we only need to grab it forgetting, fo the time bieng,me being, the Moon and Mras , both gravity wells and science fiction myths. we can reach them later with an affordable possibility to come back and to develop a space economy but we must first build a space transportation system with in situ materials ----- Messaggio originale ----- Da: Eugen Leitl A: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Inviato: Venerd? 16 febbraio 2007, 14:51:41 Oggetto: Re: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:13:40PM +0000, giorgio gaviraghi wrote: > So what it means all the above? > it means that we could develop the same capability , changing our startegy from the current earth-based to a new space based approach. > That can be done in the following phases: > Phase 1-Rendez vous with a small ( 100 m ) water rich NEO asteroid > mine it and utilize its minerals to manufacture , automatically, an exostructure of adequate size Excellent idea, but for a couple of serious issues. The velocity delta for all the known planetoids is high. Microgravity work is different from gravity work. The distance is too long for teleoperation by closed loop motorics (already with the Moon one has to train operators for the delay, and augment them with system-side reflexes). There is no reason not to use the Moon (we're not as lucky as Mars with Phobos and Deimos), and to not send astronauts. I can teleoperate a platform via the Internet much more efficiently than a zero-volume-delta life support system. Even on-site, it would be much more efficient to keep people in the pressurized cabin while the teleoperated robots roam the lunar landscape. Long-term, people have to future in deep space. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ___________________________________ L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 15:16:34 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:16:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <671092.57491.qm@web26203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216092706.038c5e20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:13 PM 2/16/2007 +0000, Giorgio wrote: >I believe that something is extremely flawed on this entire concept. >While I strongly agree that a space elevator could certainly be a benefit >in a long run strategy for space missions, I also believe that our >strategical approach to space development is wrong and that is the cause >of all the major setbacks that we have since the Apollo days. >Our entire space strategy is based in sending,for now very limited >payloads at unaffordable costs from the bottom of a deep gravity well, The >earth, to other gravity wells, Moon or Mars . >The new Vision plans, Orion and Ares are nothing more than a revised >Apollo and Saturn missions , fifty years later , putting aside all the >experience and knowhow that the shuttle and ISS, despite their basically >failure, has obtained. >Let's suppose that we are a Kardashev 3 society. >How would they approach the development of a new planetary system? >They would be coming with a "mother ship" with all their knowhow aand >technology , they would utilize the most easily available materials for >their requirements (comets and asteroids without costly gravity wells) and >would deploy the required missions , first unmanned ,later , if possible, >manned to the most interesting bodies. >We are not yet at Kardashev 1 level, we don't have a Mother ship and >everything must come from the bottom of a deep gravity well: >So what it means all the above? >it means that we could develop the same capability , changing our startegy >from the current earth-based to a new space based approach. I was one of the founders of the L5 Society. You don't need to convince me of the value of extra terrestrial resources, but you might be interested in the history of why the space colony idea failed. Freeman Dyson analyzed it in in _Disturbing the Unverse_. He analyzed the Plymouth colony and the Mormon colonization of Utah. The reason space colonies were not going to happen was that transport into space was *10,000* times to expensive for families to afford it. *If* the space elevator is built and amortized for a massive SPS project, then transportation up to GEO depends mainly on energy cost. A Gw day will lift 2000 tons, that's 24 million kwh. At 5 cents a kwh, that 1.2 million dollars, and bus bar power from a rectenna might go as low as 1/5 of that. If you figure a family of 4 plus household goods at 5 tons, it will cost them $15,000 for the lift to GEO, and might get down to $3000. That's well inside Dyson's figure of 2 years of income. >That can be done in the following phases: >Phase 1-Rendez vous with a small ( 100 m ) water rich NEO asteroid > mine it and utilize its minerals to manufacture , automatically, snip That's the key problem. Nobody has any engineering experience with automatic manufacturing from dirt up. I am (or was) a working engineer with wide experience and I wouldn't know where to start. If the Mars Society were to dump a package where they have their habitats and build even a small house without human labor input that would be an interesting demonstration. I am a bit amused at the opposition to the space elevator from this group. Perhaps it is to serious a proposal. I don't want to live an energy poor lifestyle and if you think about it, I doubt you do either. Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 15:51:31 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:51:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <20070216141154.8420.qmail@web26207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216103216.038c5a90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:11 PM 2/16/2007 +0000, Giorgio wrote: >If robotics systems are still unavailable and sophidticated enough we wil >need a manned mision but that means higher costs and payloads >Still is much less expensive to reach a NEO than the Moon, being a gravity >well What's important is not the depth of the gravity well, but the cost (largely energy) to get out of it. If you can get the efficiency high (which a mechanical space elevator does) and get the cost of energy low, gravity wells are not a problem. As a matter of fact, if you are dropping more mass down the well than you are taking out, the system produces excess energy. >We have all what we need at reachable lenght, we only need to grab it >forgetting, fo the time bieng,me being, the Moon and Mras , both gravity >wells and science fiction myths. >we can reach them later with an affordable possibility to come back and to >develop a space economy but we must first build a space transportation >system with in situ materials All that junk around the earth is "in situ" and we need it for the counterweight. Certainly having this much infrastructure in GEO would make going after the other goodies the solar system has to offer much less expensive. I don't *know* that this project is possible even in the engineering sense much less the business sense. The main problem is the cable, this pulley design can use considerably lower strength cable than the magic 63 Gpa and still use mechanical power. (how many pulley stages depends sensitively on the cable strength.) Someone have a web site they could hang a 240k jpg on? Keith From giogavir at yahoo.it Fri Feb 16 15:47:47 2007 From: giogavir at yahoo.it (giorgio gaviraghi) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:47:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <696524.28188.qm@web26203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Keith don't misunerstand me I am not at all oppose to the space elevator concept It it works it could make space accessibility extremely affordable. What I am opposed to is the current strategy to send everything from earth, the bottom of the deep gravity well. We should send from earth only people and sophisticated products, everything else, like structures, solar panels, life support systems etc should be supplied by space based bodies easily accessible (asteroids and comets). The entire NASA plans are based in this extremely expensive and no win strategy. We had a 40 year hiatus after Apollo we risk another one after Orion.Mankind can't afford that in the 21st century. ----- Messaggio originale ----- Da: Keith Henson A: ExI chat list Inviato: Venerd? 16 febbraio 2007, 16:16:34 Oggetto: Re: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III At 12:13 PM 2/16/2007 +0000, Giorgio wrote: >I believe that something is extremely flawed on this entire concept. >While I strongly agree that a space elevator could certainly be a benefit >in a long run strategy for space missions, I also believe that our >strategical approach to space development is wrong and that is the cause >of all the major setbacks that we have since the Apollo days. >Our entire space strategy is based in sending,for now very limited >payloads at unaffordable costs from the bottom of a deep gravity well, The >earth, to other gravity wells, Moon or Mars . >The new Vision plans, Orion and Ares are nothing more than a revised >Apollo and Saturn missions , fifty years later , putting aside all the >experience and knowhow that the shuttle and ISS, despite their basically >failure, has obtained. >Let's suppose that we are a Kardashev 3 society. >How would they approach the development of a new planetary system? >They would be coming with a "mother ship" with all their knowhow aand >technology , they would utilize the most easily available materials for >their requirements (comets and asteroids without costly gravity wells) and >would deploy the required missions , first unmanned ,later , if possible, >manned to the most interesting bodies. >We are not yet at Kardashev 1 level, we don't have a Mother ship and >everything must come from the bottom of a deep gravity well: >So what it means all the above? >it means that we could develop the same capability , changing our startegy >from the current earth-based to a new space based approach. I was one of the founders of the L5 Society. You don't need to convince me of the value of extra terrestrial resources, but you might be interested in the history of why the space colony idea failed. Freeman Dyson analyzed it in in _Disturbing the Unverse_. He analyzed the Plymouth colony and the Mormon colonization of Utah. The reason space colonies were not going to happen was that transport into space was *10,000* times to expensive for families to afford it. *If* the space elevator is built and amortized for a massive SPS project, then transportation up to GEO depends mainly on energy cost. A Gw day will lift 2000 tons, that's 24 million kwh. At 5 cents a kwh, that 1.2 million dollars, and bus bar power from a rectenna might go as low as 1/5 of that. If you figure a family of 4 plus household goods at 5 tons, it will cost them $15,000 for the lift to GEO, and might get down to $3000. That's well inside Dyson's figure of 2 years of income. >That can be done in the following phases: >Phase 1-Rendez vous with a small ( 100 m ) water rich NEO asteroid > mine it and utilize its minerals to manufacture , automatically, snip That's the key problem. Nobody has any engineering experience with automatic manufacturing from dirt up. I am (or was) a working engineer with wide experience and I wouldn't know where to start. If the Mars Society were to dump a package where they have their habitats and build even a small house without human labor input that would be an interesting demonstration. I am a bit amused at the opposition to the space elevator from this group. Perhaps it is to serious a proposal. I don't want to live an energy poor lifestyle and if you think about it, I doubt you do either. Keith Henson _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ___________________________________ L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Feb 16 15:08:02 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:08:02 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Artificial Art enters Natural History Museum Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070216090721.03057b88@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Artificial Art enters Natural History RAP (Robotic Action Painter), a painting robot created by artist Leonel Moura, is now part of the permanent Hall of Human Origins at the Museum of Natural History in New York http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/human/art2.php In a recent interview Leonel Moura said that "most people understand now what Artificial Intelligence is. They accept the fact that it is today possible to simulate intelligence in machines and robots. A kind of intelligence that for being artificial it does not mean to be less intelligent. Hence I propose a similar concept for art. We can now build machines and robots able to create their own art. An artificial art of course but for being artificial it does not mean to be less artistic." http://www.leonelmoura.com/rap.html Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 16:35:35 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:35:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:13 PM 2/16/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: snip > > Putting the anchor point at Baker Island deals with most of the > > possibilities of being attacked. Putting the anchor point on the > >Anything involving launching a ton of ballbearings on the other >side of the Earth with orbit intersecting your ribbon will kill it. Anybody who can launch a ton of ball bearings can launch a nuke which is much more likely to take it out. But *why*? Can you think of a country on earth that will not be a customer for low cost power in 20-25 years? snip >The real >stuff we have now doesn't even come within the touching distance. That's true. But we are talking 15 years before the first thread goes up. >What about atomic oxygen attacking the ribbon? You'll need to coat >it. The time the ribbon spends in the atomic oxygen level is too short to cause much damage. >What about wear from the climbers? You will need to constantly >reinforce the ribbon. No climbers. Mechanical lift. Every hundred days or so the entire cable comes back to ground level where it can be inspected or the entire thing replaced. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 16:33:22 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:33:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113233.03a17830@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:39 PM 2/16/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: snip >I understand the tether design is a pure CNT ribbon 1 m wide, and aready well >in touching distance of the theoretical tensile strength. This does >strike me as only borderline doable, and perhaps not at all doable. This proposal does not use ribbon. Reason for ribbon was because you tapered in the thickness dimension and the climbers went up gripping the ribbon with big rollers. This project gets the taper from pulley stations and uses round constant diameter mechanically driven cable that goes though all pulley sheaves and back to the ground. See the .jpg. This is really important in the buildup stage. Keith From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 16 17:21:08 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:21:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216092706.038c5e20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <671092.57491.qm@web26203.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070216092706.038c5e20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070216172108.GR21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:16:34AM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > That's the key problem. Nobody has any engineering experience with > automatic manufacturing from dirt up. I am (or was) a working engineer Exactly. Expecially in microgravity. Which is why scaled-down teleoperated (wheeled centaur-type) robots on the Moon are so interesting. You don't even need an InterPlanet, common TCP/IP and UCP is good enough for a pingpong of 2.5 s. Teams distributed across time zones with laser line of sight and linked up via the terrestrial Internet could operate 24/7/365 machinery at the north pole crater rim. You could just add an artificial FIFO lag to a terrestrial lunar simulator (an UHV chamber with simulated regolith and lots of xenon lights), and start tinkering but for gravity -- which is not that different for very small robots. > with wide experience and I wouldn't know where to start. If the Mars > Society were to dump a package where they have their habitats and build > even a small house without human labor input that would be an interesting > demonstration. Sending people to space looks such a waste of resources. Life support overhead, radiation shielding, bone mineral loss in microgravity, blacking out at just a few g's, the list can go on. > I am a bit amused at the opposition to the space elevator from this > group. Perhaps it is to serious a proposal. I don't want to live an This group will shoot down ideas which don't make sense. Right now the project is much too expensive, and there's frankly no money for anything, unless it's a war. There is no longer to lift human cargo with tethers or beanstalks with nanotechnology, because monkey bauplan people as well as the biosphere and nanotechnology are incompatible long-term. > energy poor lifestyle and if you think about it, I doubt you do either. Look at http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm Suburbia density is low enough to be self-reliant. At one third of the current price, fossil is obsolete. EU energy/household IIRC is half that of US, and I don't have to tell you about which life quality wins. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 18:38:07 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:38:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216131109.03a0a170@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:21 PM 2/16/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: >On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 10:16:34AM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > > > That's the key problem. Nobody has any engineering experience with > > automatic manufacturing from dirt up. I am (or was) a working engineer > > >Exactly. Expecially in microgravity. > > >Which is why scaled-down teleoperated (wheeled centaur-type) robots >on the Moon are so interesting. You don't even need an InterPlanet, >common TCP/IP and UCP is good enough for a pingpong of 2.5 s. >Teams distributed across time zones with laser line of sight and >linked up via the terrestrial Internet could operate 24/7/365 >machinery at the north pole crater rim. You could just add an >artificial FIFO lag to a terrestrial lunar simulator (an UHV >chamber with simulated regolith and lots of xenon lights), and >start tinkering but for gravity -- which is not that different >for very small robots. Ok. You are "there" at the lunar north pole in a centaur type robot. I even grant you finding water in some form. What are you going to do? Lunar rock is silicon, aluminum, iron (a little free state) and oxygen. The silicon and aluminum are tightly bound in complex oxides. Do you have any idea of the steps and chemicals needed to process such rock into metals and very high purity silicon? Am I the only one on this group with industrial process experience? snip >This group will shoot down ideas which don't make sense. Right now >the project is much too expensive, Please point out where I have put a price tag on this project. I don't think I have because I don't have any idea of what it would cost to build or even the sub parts. >and there's frankly no money for >anything, unless it's a war. Think of north sea oil. The market is essentially the entire world energy market. Last year ExxonMobile's profit was $20 billion. If there is a clear case to make money, especially when it solves *major* problems such as global warming, it shouldn't be hard to get it to happen. snip > >I don't want to live an > > energy poor lifestyle and if you think about it, I doubt you do either. > >Look at http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm >Suburbia density is low enough to be self-reliant. At one third of >the current price, fossil is obsolete. EU energy/household IIRC >is half that of US, and I don't have to tell you about which life >quality wins. I think we live an energy poor lifestyle right now. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 16 18:48:15 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:48:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith Henson wrote: > At 01:13 PM 2/16/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: > >> Anything involving launching a ton of ballbearings on >> the other side of the Earth with orbit intersecting >> your ribbon will kill it. > > Anybody who can launch a ton of ball bearings can > launch a nuke which is much more likely to take it out. > But *why? Because such a structure represents a huge gradient of power, and nature abhors a gradient. - Jef From scerir at libero.it Fri Feb 16 18:43:44 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:43:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] random links References: <200702012322.l11NMWOg012779@andromeda.ziaspace.com><002301c7469b$e017cd80$64bf1f97@archimede><000401c746f4$13eca970$66bf1f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070202124531.02297ad8@satx.rr.com> <003a01c7476a$6b23c400$06931f97@archimede> Message-ID: <001201c751fa$63ae0010$6dbd1f97@archimede> > Maybe the question is not only about the 'unreasonable' > effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences > http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html > but also about the 'unreasonable' effectiveness of > natural sciences in mathematics. There is a post, 'No more Secrets', http://kea-monad.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-more-secrets.html about another possible 'meaning' of those 'zeros' (of the Zeta function).[1][2][3] [1] See also paper #30 in the page http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/~dusautoy/flash/newleft.htm [2] "Our purpose is to report on the development of an analogy, in which three areas of mathematics and physics, usually regarded as separate, are intimately connected. The analogy is tentative and tantalizing, but nevertheless fruitful. The three areas are eigenvalue asymptotics in wave (and particularly quantum) physics, dynamical chaos, and prime number theory. At the heart of the analogy is a speculation concerning the zeros of the Riemann Zeta function (an infinite sequence of number encoding the primes): the Riemann zeros are related to the eigenvalues (vibrational frequencies or quantum energies) of some wave system, underlying which is a dynamical system whose rays or trajectories are chaotic." - M.V. Berry and J.P. Keating from "The Riemann Zeros and Eigenvalue Asymptotics" - SIAM Review 41, n.2 (1999) 236-266 [3] "The only laws of matter are those which our minds must fabricate, and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter." -James Clerk Maxwell From pharos at gmail.com Fri Feb 16 19:22:10 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:22:10 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 2/16/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: > > Anybody who can launch a ton of ball bearings can > > launch a nuke which is much more likely to take it out. > > But *why? > > Because such a structure represents a huge gradient of power, and nature > abhors a gradient. > Or maybe just to get their 73 virgins in Paradise. How simple and low-tech destruction techniques are required? Would the cable survive a light plane strike? A parachutist with a chainsaw or bolt cutters or arc-welding kit? Maybe none of these is feasible, but the point is not to defend the cable against ICBMs, but against the simple, basic methods of suicidal fanatics. BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 19:55:32 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216144732.03a0ab80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:22 PM 2/16/2007 +0000, you wrote: >On 2/16/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Keith Henson wrote: > > > Anybody who can launch a ton of ball bearings can > > > launch a nuke which is much more likely to take it out. > > > But *why? > > > > Because such a structure represents a huge gradient of power, and nature > > abhors a gradient. Could you expand on this? Perhaps putting it in evolutionary psychology terms? >Or maybe just to get their 73 virgins in Paradise. > >How simple and low-tech destruction techniques are required? > >Would the cable survive a light plane strike? First, the location is out of range for light plains, but yes. The plane would be sliced like a hard boiled egg. >A parachutist with a chainsaw or bolt cutters or arc-welding kit? The cable is *moving* up and down at 1000 mph. Grab it, and if you can hang on, you are very shortly out of the atmosphere or wrapped around the driver wheel. >Maybe none of these is feasible, but the point is not to defend the >cable against ICBMs, but against the simple, basic methods of suicidal >fanatics. Sinking the Enterprise would do it, but that's getting close to the ICBM category. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 16 20:20:15 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:20:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216144732.03a0ab80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070216144732.03a0ab80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith Henson wrote: > At 07:22 PM 2/16/2007 +0000, you wrote: >> On 2/16/07, Jef Allbright wrote: >>> Keith Henson wrote: >>>> Anybody who can launch a ton of ball bearings can >>>> launch a nuke which is much more likely to take it out. >>>> But *why? >>> >>> Because such a structure represents a huge gradient of >>> power, and nature abhors a gradient. > > Could you expand on this? Perhaps putting it in > evolutionary psychology terms? Keith, I would be happy to expand on it, but that would require more time than I can spend today. I've already exceeded my self-imposed quote for spending time on posting here and some other places this morning. I see that you did grasp the meaning and intent of my comment and seem to be looking for something more substantial to back it up. Perhaps Eugen or another of the big-picture systems thinkers on this list may want to contribute to this, faster and better than I can. If so, they should feel free to do so. In short, I remember when as a child I first read "Nature abhors a vacuum" and I thought there was something profound about it, but not profound enough. I was trying to generalize to the idea that all action is a result of difference of potential. Nowadays I tend to generalize this all the way down to gradients of entropy. So this can be seen as one of the general operating principles of the universe, effective at all scales, from the cosmic to the social. It's built into our evolved psychology due to its general applicability to all action and thus behavior, with the result at the cognitive level that any perceived gradient creates intent to minimize the difference. Of course, from the unbalanced context of self, that tends toward actions that overshoot. With your background in EP, I don't know that it makes sense for me to develop this further or to dig up supporting examples for you. Please let me know your thoughts. - Jef From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Fri Feb 16 20:21:20 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:21:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <45D61240.5080605@thomasoliver.net> BillK wrote: >On 2/16/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > >>Keith Henson wrote: >> >> >>>Anybody who can launch a ton of ball bearings can >>>launch a nuke which is much more likely to take it out. >>>But *why? >>> >>> >>Because such a structure represents a huge gradient of power, and nature >>abhors a gradient. >> >> >[...] the point is not to defend the >cable against ICBMs, but against the simple, basic methods of suicidal >fanatics. > >BillK > Can Jef & Bill plan the erradication of suicidal fanaticism as cleverly as Keith, Eugen & Giorgio plan our escape from the planet? I don't fear the kind of power that lifts us to the skies. My nature abhors the kind of power that calls for mandates backed by violence. Isn't that the "rationale" of suicidal fanatics? As I see it, that which gives no offense seldom needs a defense. -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moses2k at gmail.com Fri Feb 16 20:27:38 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:27:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator vs. space pier Message-ID: <3aff9e290702161227q6a402c6mdedd201bc4ae9111@mail.gmail.com> I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on comparison of feasibility, cost/benefit, and failure modes between the space elevator and the space pier. http://autogeny.org/tower/tower.html -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 16 20:37:17 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:37:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <45D61240.5080605@thomasoliver.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <45D61240.5080605@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: Thomas wrote: BillK wrote: On 2/16/07, Jef Allbright wrote: Keith Henson wrote: Anybody who can launch a ton of ball bearings can launch a nuke which is much more likely to take it out. But *why? Because such a structure represents a huge gradient of power, and nature abhors a gradient. [...] the point is not to defend the cable against ICBMs, but against the simple, basic methods of suicidal fanatics. BillK Can Jef & Bill plan the erradication of suicidal fanaticism as cleverly as Keith, Eugen & Giorgio plan our escape from the planet? ?I don't fear the kind of power that lifts us to the skies. ?My nature abhors the kind of power that calls for mandates backed by violence. ?Isn't that the "rationale" of suicidal fanatics? ?As I see it, that which gives no offense seldom needs a defense. ?-- Thomas -------------------- Yes, my plan involves increasing the awareness of intentional agents such that they realize the wisdom of identifying not only with what they value here and now, but with their expanded interests in the future. Realizing this, one begins to focus not on ends that can be currently conceived, but on principles of effective interaction leading to ongoing growth of that which is valued over increasing scope. Wanna help? If so, you will need to learn that conflict at one level leads to cooperation and growth at a higher level of organization. Avoiding conflict leads to stagnation and eventual non-existence of that which you value. I understand that you abhor coercion and conflict in all its forms. It's all a matter of context. - Jef From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Fri Feb 16 20:45:05 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:45:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070216144732.03a0ab80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <45D617D1.4090804@thomasoliver.net> Jef Allbright wrote: >[...] In short, I remember when as a child I first read "Nature abhors a >vacuum" and I thought there was something profound about it, but not >profound enough. I was trying to generalize to the idea that all action >is a result of difference of potential. Nowadays I tend to generalize >this all the way down to gradients of entropy. > >So this can be seen as one of the general operating principles of the >universe, effective at all scales, from the cosmic to the social. It's >built into our evolved psychology due to its general applicability to >all action and thus behavior, with the result at the cognitive level >that any perceived gradient creates intent to minimize the difference. >Of course, from the unbalanced context of self, that tends toward >actions that overshoot. > I think you meant "nature abhors a *steep* gradient." I see it as a major theme of ancient Chinese philosophy . -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Feb 16 21:56:55 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:56:55 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator vs. space pier In-Reply-To: <3aff9e290702161227q6a402c6mdedd201bc4ae9111@mail.gmail.com> References: <3aff9e290702161227q6a402c6mdedd201bc4ae9111@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070216215655.GE21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 02:27:38PM -0600, Chris Petersen wrote: > > I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on comparison of feasibility, > cost/benefit, and failure modes between the space elevator and the > space pier. > [1]http://autogeny.org/tower/tower.html "Compared to the skyhook, which is just barely possible with even the theoretical best material properties, a tower 100 km high is easy. Flawless diamond, with a compressive strength of 50 GPa, does not even need a taper at all for a 100 km tower; a 100-km column of diamond weighs 3.5 billion newtons per square meter, but can support 50 billion. Even commercially available polycrystalline synthetic diamond with advertised strengths of 5 GPa would work. Of course in practice columns would be tapered so as not to waste material; and the base of the tower would be broadened to account for transverse forces, such as the jet stream. Only the bottom 15 km (i.e. 15%) of the tower lies in the troposphere and would have to be built taking weather into account." This answers the question pretty much by itself. Solid beams of diamond, 100 km high. We can synthesize diamond, but only in relatively small, discrete chunks. Without machine phase chemistry, this is way out of reach. However, the maglev accelerator idea would also work on Earth, a bit. A maglev acceleration track built up the slope nearby a suitably located conical mountain (volcano, most likely) near the equator can substitute the first or even the first and the second stage, allowing acceleration of a rocket and/or a hypersonic scramjet stage to the ignition regime and release at several km above sea level, which then reaches Mach 25 on own power and enters LEO. On the other hand, one could just strap such a stage to a supersonic equivalent of an An-124 (150 t payload capacity), and release it (Concorde maximum flight height was about 18 km, maximum speed was Mach 2). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 22:20:17 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:20:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator vs. space pier In-Reply-To: <3aff9e290702161227q6a402c6mdedd201bc4ae9111@mail.gmail.com > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216170127.03a5ea38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:27 PM 2/16/2007 -0600, Chris wrote: >I'd be interested to hear any thoughts on comparison of feasibility, >cost/benefit, and failure modes between the space elevator and the space pier. > >http://autogeny.org/tower/tower.html I have seen this before. The general problem with compressive structures is bending and buckling--especially with a structure that is going to have high side impulse loads at the top. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling Given the mechanical properties of Diamond and a good design program, you could probably work out what it would take design this structure. I suspect that it would take about 7 or 8 levels of fractals to get the stiffness you need to prevent buckling. Comparatively the space elevator is simple to design. Putting it up would be an interesting exercise unless it was just grown in place by nanotech assemblers. The other disadvantage (compared to the space elevator) is that it put you into low earth orbit and even there you need a rocket to circularize the orbit. It really should be built on the equator. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 22:27:32 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:27:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <45D617D1.4090804@thomasoliver.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070216144732.03a0ab80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216172323.03a30618@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:45 PM 2/16/2007 -0700, Thomas wrote: >Jef Allbright wrote: snip It's fairly clear that there are not many hardware people on this list or they are not speaking out. Any suggestions as to another list were I could get engineering type criticism? Keith Henson From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 16 22:29:12 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:29:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <45D617D1.4090804@thomasoliver.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070216144732.03a0ab80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <45D617D1.4090804@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: Thomas wrote: Jef Allbright wrote: [...] In short, I remember when as a child I first read "Nature abhors a vacuum" and I thought there was something profound about it, but not profound enough. I was trying to generalize to the idea that all action is a result of difference of potential. Nowadays I tend to generalize this all the way down to gradients of entropy. So this can be seen as one of the general operating principles of the universe, effective at all scales, from the cosmic to the social. It's built into our evolved psychology due to its general applicability to all action and thus behavior, with the result at the cognitive level that any perceived gradient creates intent to minimize the difference. Of course, from the unbalanced context of self, that tends toward actions that overshoot. I think you meant "nature abhors a *steep* gradient." ?I see it as a major theme of ancient Chinese philosophy. -------------------- No, any gradient at all. An effective analogy can be made with electronics: Any voltage gradient will cause electrons to move so as to reduce the gradient to zero. The Golden Mean seemed analogous to impedance matching for optimum transfer of power. Other kids would probably have thought of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Yes, I was odd. - Jef From kevin at kevinfreels.com Fri Feb 16 22:27:21 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:27:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world References: <005501c7513b$c6a45fd0$640fa8c0@BJSMain> Message-ID: <04b701c75219$a09b97c0$640fa8c0@kevin> Yeah, it's neat ALMOST what I am looking for. Thanks. I just keep thinking that the great lakes and the rivers would all be affected as well and would like to see that too. Is this the best there is? What I'm trying to figure out is where all the valuable real estate will be in 20-50 years. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian J. Shores" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world > Thanks BillK, that's a pretty a cool link. I'm also glad that even with a > 14m increase in sea level, my house will be above water! :D > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:42 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world > > > On 2/15/07, kevinfreels.com wrote: > > I saw a preview for some Al Gore movie about climate change. In the > > preview there was a scene where they showed a computer animation of > > how the coastlines would shrink with rising sea levels. I presume > > (which maybe I > > shouldn;t) that they used actual elevatin maps to create the animation. I > > was wondering if anyone knew if there was an online simulator somewhere > > where you could maybe adjust a sliding scale and see the areas that would > > flood as the sea level increased. It seems like it would be a logical and > > fairly straightforward thing to create - no more complicated than a flight > > simulator. But I can't find anything like this. Does anyone know if such a > > thing is available and if not, maybe someone here is capable of designing > > it???? > > > > > I think this is what you want. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > 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: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/686 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release Date: 2/14/2007 > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Feb 16 23:14:28 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:14:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216172323.03a30618@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070216144732.03a0ab80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070216172323.03a30618@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith Henson wrote: > It's fairly clear that there are not many hardware people on this > list or > they are not speaking out. > > Any suggestions as to another list were I could get engineering > type criticism? No, I don't know of a better list for such speculation and review. We have good scientific and engineering minds on-board, people who have thought about these and related subjects for years. More rigorous design reviews at this conceptual phase would include detailed modeling, simulation and documentation. ----------------- Sorry for not changing the subject line when it turned toward philosophy of design. In over two decades as a manager within high tech industry, and as a working member of product development teams, I gained an acute understanding of how true engineers will create wonderful castles in the air, and then defend them as if their children, fortified with the certainty that nearly all of those with questions, criticisms or alternative views weren't even nearly qualified to peoperly understand. Heh, most of the time they were right. But it was often a self-fulling pattern of belief, and Not Invented Here reigned supreme. As a technical manager in the support side of the business, I experienced what happens when a clever prototype escapes to Manufacturing and then out to the field and is exposed to use and abuse never thought of in the pure light of Engineering, and when FMEA was optional and contingency and fallback plans were not even considered or were Somebody Else's Problem. I learned that there's a fascinating *philosophy* of design and engineering including statistical failure analysis and prediction, and significant differences between reliability, robustness, and resilience, and that one can never be 100% certain what will happen out in the real world but it must be considered. Many of the engineers I've known didn't want to be bothered with all that shit, however. Couldn't get them to do documentation, either. FWIW, - Jef From pharos at gmail.com Fri Feb 16 23:21:11 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:21:11 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Re-save the world In-Reply-To: <04b701c75219$a09b97c0$640fa8c0@kevin> References: <005501c7513b$c6a45fd0$640fa8c0@BJSMain> <04b701c75219$a09b97c0$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: On 2/16/07, kevinfreels.com wrote: > Yeah, it's neat ALMOST what I am looking for. Thanks. I just keep thinking > that the great lakes and the rivers would all be affected as well and would > like to see that too. Is this the best there is? What I'm trying to figure > out is where all the valuable real estate will be in 20-50 years. > > Your problem there is that the Great Lakes are waaaayyyy above sea-level. The height above sea level of the lake surfaces varies from Lake Superior's 602 ft (183 m) to Lake Ontario's 246 ft (75 m) BillK From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Fri Feb 16 22:09:23 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:09:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] protecting progress (was space elevator) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <45D61240.5080605@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <45D62B93.7010802@thomasoliver.net> Jef Allbright wrote: >Thomas wrote: > >BillK wrote: > >On 2/16/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > >Keith Henson wrote: > >Anybody who can launch a ton of ball bearings can >launch a nuke which is much more likely to take it out. >But *why? > >Because such a structure represents a huge gradient of power, and nature >abhors a gradient. > >[...] the point is not to defend the >cable against ICBMs, but against the simple, basic methods of suicidal >fanatics. > >BillK >Can Jef & Bill plan the erradication of suicidal fanaticism as cleverly as Keith, Eugen & Giorgio plan our escape from the planet? I don't fear the kind of power that lifts us to the skies. My nature abhors the kind of power that calls for mandates backed by violence. Isn't that the "rationale" of suicidal fanatics? As I see it, that which gives no offense seldom needs a defense. -- Thomas > >-------------------- > >Yes, my plan involves increasing the awareness of intentional agents such that they realize the wisdom of identifying not only with what they value here and now, but with their expanded interests in the future. Realizing this, one begins to focus not on ends that can be currently conceived, but on principles of effective interaction leading to ongoing growth of that which is valued over increasing scope. > >Wanna help? If so, you will need to learn that conflict at one level leads to cooperation and growth at a higher level of organization. Avoiding conflict leads to stagnation and eventual non-existence of that which you value. > >I understand that you abhor coercion and conflict in all its forms. It's all a matter of context. > >- Jef > Thanks for repeating that. And I agree with these generalities except the phrase: "in all its forms." That mischaracterizes me. I get pleasure from our conceptual commerce and tolerate a fairly high gradient of cognitive dissonance. If you are trying to teach me that violence is acceptable at simple levels of human commerce then why site Hans Rosling's strong evidence that less violence increases life span and quality worldwide? -- Thomas 1. Myths about the developing world (Amazing graphics) (TEDTalks, Hans Rosling) - Google Video -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Feb 16 23:38:05 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:38:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers V Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216173241.03a53d90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> The way you justify a space elevator (which is going to be expensive) is power satellites. Now if you have an elevator, you want to take up power sat parts as densely as you can because of the high speed run up through the atmosphere. And in the early stages you need the loads to be fairly small, a ton or a few tons. Power sats are mostly huge areas supporting photo voltaic cells and/or reflectors. The best way I can see to make the supporting beams is to bring up kilometer coils of sheet metal, run them through roll formers, and stretch them to make them straight. A 0.2 mm by 1.5 m by 1 km roll of Invar weights close to 2.5 metric tons. Punched out holes will reduce the weight to a ton. After passing through a roll former you get a beam with the cross section of a bracket character. Why Invar? Think eclipses. If one ton beams are placed at 10 meter intervals, the level one main structure masses 100 tons per square km. Level 2, the photo voltaic surface, the reflectors, and the transmitter will about double that. A production rate of a 5-10 Gw power sat every 5 days is daunting. I am assuming a "dry dock" construction area built out of the same kind of beams. There would be 500 beam spinners on each end, each with a magazine of at least 5 rolls of sheet metal. The beams would be pulled out at walking speed and spliced to generate the underlying 5 km by 5 km surface. There is nothing I can see that would prevent the "keel" of a power sat from being constructed in a day. For connections between the main layer of beams and the cross beams, I believe spot welding (the same process used in forming car bodies) would be best. One of the tricky problems might be keeping the vacuum hard enough around the power sats in GEO. Hard vacuum is an excellent insulator, but it does not take much gas to make it into a serious conductor. Voltage to the transmitting antenna might run 10,000 volts. That not hard to build up in series photo voltaic cells across the 5 km width of a power sat collector. But at 10 Gw, it is a *million* amps. A high powered arc is going to vaporize any material, generating gas and a cascading failure. Much thought will have to be given to this problem. It might be that the satellite output would have to be shorted (which does not raise the current much because of the internal resistance of the cells), the satellite pointed away from the sun, the short removed and the satellite faced back to the sun, a process which would take the power sat off line for hours. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Feb 17 00:35:10 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:35:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] protecting progress In-Reply-To: <45D62B93.7010802@thomasoliver.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216113431.03a235f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <45D61240.5080605@thomasoliver.net> <45D62B93.7010802@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: Thomas wrote: > [Jef wrote:] >> I understand that you abhor coercion and >> conflict in all its forms. It's all a >> matter of context. ---------- > Thanks for repeating that. ?And I agree with > these generalities except the phrase: "in all > its forms." ?That mischaracterizes me.? I get > pleasure from our conceptual commerce and > tolerate a fairly high gradient of cognitive > dissonance. Isn't tolerating cognitive dissonance and example of avoidance, rather than of an appreciation of the merits of constructive conflict? > If you are trying to teach me that violence is > acceptable at simple levels of human commerce > then why site Hans Rosling's strong evidence > that less violence increases life span and > quality worldwide? > > 1. Myths about the developing world (Amazing > graphics) (TEDTalks, Hans Rosling) - Google Video That's a great video. I don't think I cited it, though, but simply recommended it for its wonderful example of data visualization and its reassuring message of progress dependant on human freedoms. First of all, let me tell you that I tend to get a bit uppity when people appear to suggest that I might actually promote moral negatives such as violence. Second, could you switch to plain text and standard quoting style? My point to you today, and last time we touched on this, is that the difference between persuasion, coercion, and force is little more than context. Can you show me a clear dividing line? Likewise for conflict and competition. It might help to keep in mind that no such categories actually exist in "reality"; they are only artifacts of our attempts to make sense of our shared observations. Morality in its extensible sense hinges on an effective understanding of context. Violence in one context can be seen as irredeamably destructive and thus immoral. The same violent actions for a "right" cause can be seen as morally good. But it's important that you don't confuse this "morality within context" with ungrounded "moral relativity." Calibrating question: Would you choose to use deadly force to protect your family if you could see no practical alternative? That's probably enough to chew on (non-violently, of course.) I'd like to ask for clarification of your statement about violence and "simple levels of human commerce." I note that you're using "commerce" in the very general sense meaning any exchange of value, including this discussion, but it seems inappropriate to the point of absurdity to suggest that I would "try to teach...that violence is acceptable" in such a context. Was your question intended to incite a reaction, or was it a sincere expression of your understanding of my behavior? - Jef From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 17 01:44:24 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:44:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers V In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216173241.03a53d90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216204043.03a8fdf0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:38 PM 2/16/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: snip >A 0.2 mm by 1.5 m by 1 km roll of Invar weights close to 2.5 metric >tons. Punched out holes will reduce the weight to a ton. After passing >through a roll former you get a beam with the cross section of a bracket >character. Why Invar? Think eclipses. BTW, this much Invar at 60 10,000 ton power sats per year uses up about 15% of the world production of nickle. Of course after a few years I rather expect nickle from asteroids to start coming on the market. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 17 02:03:56 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:03:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers V In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216204043.03a8fdf0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216173241.03a53d90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216210306.03a96db8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:44 PM 2/16/2007 -0500, you wrote: >At 06:38 PM 2/16/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > >snip > > > >A 0.2 mm by 1.5 m by 1 km roll of Invar weights close to 2.5 metric > >tons. Punched out holes will reduce the weight to a ton. After passing > >through a roll former you get a beam with the cross section of a bracket > >character. Why Invar? Think eclipses. > >BTW, this much Invar at 60 10,000 ton power sats per year uses up about 15% >of the world production of nickle. > >Of course after a few years I rather expect nickle from asteroids to start >coming on the market. 5.4 billion at the current price of $18 a pound. Keith From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Feb 17 03:06:11 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:06:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216172323.03a30618@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200702170319.l1H3JNv2003255@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > It's fairly clear that there are not many hardware people on this list or > they are not speaking out. ... > > Keith Henson > Keith, I would probably have put in more but for the fact that youuuu have me distracted worrying about and calculating how plutonium could be made with stuff ordinary people or dippy little governments could get. The solubility of uranium nitrate of 66g/100cc was a surprise. 66 g of uranium, what's that about 3cc, in a bit over 100 cc solution, nuclei spread apart by only a factor of 30 something from the solid state, ug, plenty of neutron captures possible, resulting Pu easily electro-removed from solution. I calculated an energy balance taking into account the kinetic energy of the recoiling U nucleus after absorbing the neutron, but that didn't help. I get less than half a percent of the energy of the neutron ends up in kinetic energy. Now we need to control all neutron sources. That and I have been sick for over three weeks now, bronchitis, oy. The medics gave me some drugs today so I should be better soon. spike ... From dmasten at piratelabs.org Sat Feb 17 06:07:54 2007 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:07:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214123439.039f5c90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070214123439.039f5c90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1171692474.5327.32.camel@localhost> Getting back to the original posts: On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 14:19 -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Also, unless the satellites are maneuverable, nothing > below the counterweight can coexist with a space elevator regime. Any orbit having a repeating groundtrack that does not intersect the elevator can contain satellites without worry. For example, the GPS sats don't need to be moved. Also, the ribbon tether folks claim (and they have provided enough theoretical evidence to convince me) that a mobile sea platform allows the tether to be moved to avoid satellites that pose a risk to the tether. The question then is: do the dynamics of a pulley system allow similar translational control over the tether system? > Van Allen belt radiation not only presents a radiation hazard to workers, > but degrades solar cells and electronics. The total mass of particles in > the Van Allen belts is a few kg. There has been a proposal to drain the > inner belt, http://www.tethers.com/HiVOLT.html but in any case a project > with a daily mass budget 3 orders of magnitude higher that the particle > mass in the belt should be able to deal with them. Other solutions include a lightweight protective coating to the tether system. Non-biological payloads do not need much protection. Dave From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 17 11:04:02 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:04:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <200702170319.l1H3JNv2003255@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216172323.03a30618@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200702170319.l1H3JNv2003255@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070217110402.GP21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:06:11PM -0800, spike wrote: > Keith, I would probably have put in more but for the fact that youuuu have > me distracted worrying about and calculating how plutonium could be made > with stuff ordinary people or dippy little governments could get. The Ordinary people don't run nuclear reactors in their cellar. I would be very surprised dipply little governments run ever a single nuclear reactor that isn't periodically inspected, and critical parts of it sealed. You should try buying a few tons of metallic thorium, or even a large batch of thorium oxide on the world market. I doubt it's that easy, but then, I've never tried. > solubility of uranium nitrate of 66g/100cc was a surprise. 66 g of uranium, Not for me. I've got a little ampoule of it stashed somewhere, from undergrad chemistry days. Depleted uranium is a commodity, and even nondepleted stuff should be easy to get, very unlike HEU (but you didn't miss http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_special_nuctrafficking.html , did you? Very strange, I did a double-take when I read that little bit of news which never made the first page of major newspapers, which it should). But that's not the issue. > what's that about 3cc, in a bit over 100 cc solution, nuclei spread apart by > only a factor of 30 something from the solid state, ug, plenty of neutron > captures possible, resulting Pu easily electro-removed from solution. No, Pu lands in the ion exchanger (in fact, you have to make the columns small enough so that you won't get a little bit too uncomfortable, especially with all the resin and water around as moderators). You eluate it, and just produce plutonium metal via the normal route. You can't electrorefine Pu from aqueous solutions. Not that's it needed, it's just normal metallurgy, and normal high-precision milling (in a positive-pressure suit, though). > I calculated an energy balance taking into account the kinetic energy of the > recoiling U nucleus after absorbing the neutron, but that didn't help. I > get less than half a percent of the energy of the neutron ends up in kinetic > energy. I don't know what the big deal about it supposed to be. I never did any formal radiochemistry nor nuclear engineering, but from reading newspaper alone it's clear nuclear reactions proceed just fine in aqueous solution, in fact, frequently you'd get nasty surprises which kill people because you haven't factored the extra moderation in. In fact, it's a masively bad idea to step up to a slightly subcritical assembly, because people are mostly water. > Now we need to control all neutron sources. No, preparative element transmutations require a reactor. Nothing has changed. I presume the proliferation people are watching thorium, too. Just because you or me don't know something, it doesn't mean it's not elementary to nuclear engineers or chemists. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Feb 17 11:55:46 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:55:46 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216131109.03a0a170@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070216131109.03a0a170@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070217115546.GS21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:38:07PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Ok. You are "there" at the lunar north pole in a centaur type robot. I > even grant you finding water in some form. What are you going to do? I don't have a particular bootstrap scenario, because this is something which needs to be tested in practice, in the lunar simulator. What I would start with, however, is by setting up large parabolic mirrors from mylar (whether inflatable, or spanned on a foldable truss structure), and melt regolith in the focus to sheet glass (left in situ) and sputter materials (not yet produced locally) producing large areas full of thin-film photovoltaics. Once you have large local PV output, you can do things like microwave processing, electron beam patterning and welding, and ion beam patterning. Structural material would be fused glass (regolith is good enough), spun glass, and metal (electrolytically prepared from molten ore, might require low-melting salts as additives, but then, if you've got a lot of power, being wasteful is not that large an issue as long as you're in a bootstrap phase. What would be interesting in how how much control logic you need, and whether you can write them directly by ion and molecular beams onto substrate. > Lunar rock is silicon, aluminum, iron (a little free state) and > oxygen. The silicon and aluminum are tightly bound in complex oxides. Do > you have any idea of the steps and chemicals needed to process such rock > into metals and very high purity silicon? Yes. You don't need high purity silicon, because a 100 kg monocrystal goes a long way, if sputtered onto glass in um layers. Initially. There are several separation stages possible. Microsorting of the regolith is possible. Hydrogen reduction (closed-circuit water electrolysis) of regolith, and magnetic sorting. Electrolysis in the melt. Fractional destillation. Preparative mass spectroscopy. About a dozen other things I haven't thought of, but other people will. It's an experiment, where you improvise and invent along the way. Because this is expensive, you have to scale down size, and do most of the prototype work Earth-side, in lunar simulators. NASA has just ordered a large batch of simulated regolith, and UHV chambers where you could walk in are expensive, but not nearly as expensive as actually soft-landing a kiloton of hardware on Moon surface. There's a continuum between macroscale plants and nanoscale plants, so a mesoscale tabletop plant can produce output, and can be scaled up by replication. It's all about replication closure, not efficiency. > Am I the only one on this group with industrial process experience? Keith, you might have lots of industrial process experience, but I'm pretty sure you have little to none industrial process experience where UHV and energy glut are present, and you have to really strange things. Nobody has such experience, because such processes have largely to be yet to be developed. > Please point out where I have put a price tag on this project. I don't > think I have because I don't have any idea of what it would cost to build > or even the sub parts. How many launches into high Earth orbit would it take to get to get your material (counterweight and the carbon nanotube cloth belt) up? If the counterweight is an asteroid, which specifically, and how much energy is needed to capture it? > Think of north sea oil. The market is essentially the entire world energy > market. Last year ExxonMobile's profit was $20 billion. If there is a > clear case to make money, especially when it solves *major* problems such > as global warming, it shouldn't be hard to get it to happen. It is pretty clear that there is a way to make much money from methanol plants from coal and methane, and such plants are not all that expensive, but the industry doesn't do it because it considers there's not enough certainty, because the oil market is so volatile. If they're loath to commit a lousy few hundred megabucks, what about few hundred gigabucks, or a terabuck? I actually don't think a terabuck isn't all that unrealistic. The Iraq shenanigan has so far cost 0.3 terabuck, and after the smoke clears it might reach a terabuck yet. Isn't it quite obvious where our priorities lie? > I think we live an energy poor lifestyle right now. I agree, but in terms of what you get for a unit of energy, we're ridiculous. In a solid state civilization, given a liter of computronium and an energy budget of about 100 W, the lifestyle is really really really different. And you still get to play with the energy output of a star, or more (assuming, the population is so high that a star is not enough, and you have to start converting matter to energy on a very large scale). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 17 16:30:14 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:30:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070217112934.03a6f2f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:06 PM 2/16/2007 -0800, spike wrote: >snip > >Now we need to control all neutron sources. Only the big ones. If you want 24 kg of Pu 239, it takes a tenth of kg of neutrons to make it. >That and I have been sick for over three weeks now, bronchitis, oy. The >medics gave me some drugs today so I should be better soon. I used to get bronchitis every year, secondary to virus infections. It is well known that zinc cuts the duration of colds even if you start taking it after you get the cold. So I started taking 50 mg of zinc a day preemptively many years ago. Have since rarely had even the first sign of a cold and other than one time when I could not get zinc, no bronchitis. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Feb 17 17:30:24 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:30:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator numbers III Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070217113155.03a5c258@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:55 PM 2/17/2007 +0100, Eugen wrote: snip >I don't have a particular bootstrap scenario, because this is something >which needs to be tested in practice, in the lunar simulator. What I would >start with, however, is by setting up large parabolic mirrors from mylar >(whether inflatable, or spanned on a foldable truss structure), and melt >regolith in the focus to sheet glass (left in situ) and sputter materials >(not yet produced locally) producing large areas full of thin-film >photovoltaics. If you are at the pole, you can't leave them on the ground. And how are you going to collect the current from the PV surface? >Once you have large local PV output, you can do things >like microwave processing, electron beam patterning and welding, and >ion beam patterning. Structural material would be fused glass (regolith >is good enough), spun glass, and metal (electrolytically prepared from >molten ore, If you want to make metals, you need to sort out the oxides before you reduce the metals. There is lot of aluminum in lunar rock, but getting it out as Al2O3 is going to be a major effort. The Hall process to reduce aluminum not only requires 99% aluminum oxide, but uses huge amounts of carbon, which is burned up at the anodes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall-H%C3%A9roult_process It takes sorting very large amounts of regolith with a magnet, but there is a bit of reduced iron from iron containing meteorites. >might require low-melting salts as additives, but then, >if you've got a lot of power, being wasteful is not that large an issue >as long as you're in a bootstrap phase. What would be interesting in >how how much control logic you need, and whether you can write them >directly by ion and molecular beams onto substrate. > > > Lunar rock is silicon, aluminum, iron (a little free state) and > > oxygen. The silicon and aluminum are tightly bound in complex oxides. Do > > you have any idea of the steps and chemicals needed to process such rock > > into metals and very high purity silicon? > >Yes. You don't need high purity silicon, because a 100 kg monocrystal >goes a long way, if sputtered onto glass in um layers. Initially. >There are several separation stages possible. Microsorting of the >regolith is possible. Hydrogen reduction Off hand I don't think there is much in regolith that hydrogen is going to reduce. Please list for my edification. >(closed-circuit water electrolysis) >of regolith, and magnetic sorting. Electrolysis in the melt. >Fractional destillation. Preparative mass spectroscopy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron >About a dozen >other things I haven't thought of, but other people will. >It's an experiment, where you improvise and invent along the way. It not blind though. Chemistry is a very well understood subject. >Because this is expensive, you have to scale down size, and do most >of the prototype work Earth-side, in lunar simulators. NASA has just ordered >a large batch of simulated regolith, and UHV chambers where you could >walk in are expensive, but not nearly as expensive as actually soft-landing >a kiloton of hardware on Moon surface. Ah, we are already up to a kiloton. >There's a continuum between macroscale plants and nanoscale plants, >so a mesoscale tabletop plant can produce output, and can be scaled >up by replication. It's all about replication closure, not efficiency. They are closely related. See the paper Eric Drexler and I wrote on vapor phase fabrication. In that case the apparatus was able to deposit its own mass in metal every 8 hours. > > Am I the only one on this group with industrial process experience? > >Keith, you might have lots of industrial process experience, but I'm >pretty sure you have little to none industrial process experience where >UHV and energy glut are present, and you have to really strange things. To this day I have a chunk of sheet metal I made in a high vacuum chamber by vaporizing aluminum with a 10 kw electron beam. I might add that getting rid of waste heat is often more of a problem than energy. >Nobody has such experience, because such processes have largely to be >yet to be developed. > > > Please point out where I have put a price tag on this project. I don't > > think I have because I don't have any idea of what it would cost to build > > or even the sub parts. > >How many launches into high Earth orbit would it take to get to get your >material (counterweight and the carbon nanotube cloth belt) up? The counterweight is salvaged space junk. Brad Edwards thinks you can start with an 18 ton seed cable. The cable is not cloth and not a belt. There are no climbers, just elevator cars going up a moving cable. >If the >counterweight is an asteroid, which specifically, and how much energy >is needed to capture it? Please go back and text search. Have I mentioned an asteroid as the counterweight? snip > > > I think we live an energy poor lifestyle right now. > >I agree, but in terms of what you get for a unit of energy, we're >ridiculous. In a solid state civilization, given a liter of computronium >and an energy budget of about 100 W, the lifestyle is really really >really different. And you still get to play with the energy output of >a star, or more (assuming, the population is so high that a star is not >enough, and you