From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 00:03:39 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:03:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? Message-ID: I was inspired to start this thread when I saw some discussion of probability in the thread "Is Many Worlds testable?" In that thread Stuart writes, "Probability is a way of quantifying ignorance of the future." Is that so? Is there not a better definition? What is the best definition of probability? Actually this question of what is probability has occupied much of my free time since last July, when in a thread called "Popper and QT", Serafino wrote: "I would say that I do not even remember what... probability is. I vaguely remember that von Weizsaecker wrote (in 'Zeit und Wissen') that probability is 'the expectation value of the relative frequency'. It seems a perfect mix of subjectivism and frequentism." Since that time I have familiarized myself with the subject such that I think I understand the basic philosophical issues at least enough to understand the question of what is probability. And it is a difficult one. (As a probabilistic theory it's no wonder that QM's philosophical underpinnings are so inscrutable. Nevermind the mysterious results of atomic experiments; the best philosophers cannot agree even on the nature of probability in its own right!) At least four theories of probability deserve attention: 1) The Logical Theory, in which probability is defined as a degree of rational belief (Keynes). 2) The Subjective Theory, in which probability is a degree of belief of a particular individual (Ramsey, De Finetti). 3) The Frequency Theory, in which probability of an outcome is the limiting frequency of that outcome in a long or infinite series of similar events (von Mises). 4) The Propensity Theory, in which probability is an objective property of an object or experimental arrangement (Popper). Each of these theories come in several flavors. Generally they can be divided into two major camps: objectivist theories and epistemic theories. Theories 3 and 4 are clearly objective, 2 is clearly epistemic, and 1 will be seen as either epistemic or objective depending on one's conviction concerning the alleged objective neo-platonic reality of logic. In the interest of starting a discussion... Consider a frequent event (E), such as 'Rain in the Amazon Rain Forest'. Which statement is most true? A) E is frequent because it is probable. B) E is probable because it is frequent. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 1 01:00:26 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:00:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: gts wrote: > Which statement is most true? > > A) E is frequent because it is probable. > B) E is probable because it is frequent. It would be helpful, highlighted by the example of (A), to clarify the complementary usage of "probability" and "likelihood". Once again, clear terminology is vital to clear communication especially when one can't simply point to a well defined referent already held in common. That aside, I think this topic is at least as relevant as rationality. ;-) Happy New Year to the list! - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 1 04:18:56 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:18:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] global warming eats island In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20061231145953.03ab87f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200701010420.l014KNmH004264@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] global warming eats island > > At 10:26 PM 12/29/2006 +0000, Robert wrote: > > snip > > > That's actually the wrong question. Given that we want to keep the earth > close to the current temperature or even cool it a bit... Cool it a bit? Why? I woulda said warm it a bit. > Although we don't now worry about too *little* CO2... Keith Henson I sometimes worry about too little CO2. If I were a plant I would be worried about too little CO2. Having too little oxygen would be no problem however. My attitude might be shaped by being a co-owner of 14000 trees, upon which my retirement income depends. May they bloom and grow. In that sense I have a negative carbon footprint. Or it could be said that I devour more than my fair share of the limited carbon resources in the atmosphere. spike From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jan 1 09:09:22 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 01:09:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 27, 2006, at 9:37 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > So for those of you focused on computations as to whether or not > cold fusion may or may not be feasible, I would offer an alternate > problem, "When will we reincarnate Sasha?". Note the the question > is not conditional. We will have the ability to do this. We could > get into discussions as to whether or not the entity is a "greater" > or "lesser" Sasha. I would argue that the wold is a lesser place > with Sasha in absence, and thus we should seek to fill that void. > You can't, regardless of computational capacity. The vast majority of the information is gone. It would require time-travel to regain it. Anything less is a simulacrum acting sort of like some people remember Sasha acting some of the time. I would argue that the world will be a better place when we focus on what is actually doable even in theory and let go of what we can do nothing about. We might want to start with what is most critical to do something about now or real soon now. - samantha From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 10:03:13 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:03:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> Now this is a really interesting new thread for 2007! Of course I agree with Samantha that resurrecting the dead is not doable with any of the technologies we are even remotely able to imagine at this moment. The vast majority of the information is indeed, according to our current knowledge of physics, gone. But "there are more things in heaven and earth...". Regaining the information would not require time travel, but only the ability to retrieve information from the past, which is not the same thing. Information transfer from the past to the future does not create logical paradoxes. And come to that, full time travel itself does not create logical paradoxes in the MWI. If something is not against the fundamental laws of physics, sooner or later engineers will find a way to do it. So, having never met Sasha, I look forward to meeting him in a few thousands of years. I wrote on this a couple of years ago and remember some interesting comments by Samantha. Now I have moved the article to a new home: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/engineering_transcendence/ and look forward to your comments. By the way I will expand this article in a book titled "Transcendent Engineering". G. On 1/1/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2006, at 9:37 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > So for those of you focused on computations as to whether or not > > cold fusion may or may not be feasible, I would offer an alternate > > problem, "When will we reincarnate Sasha?". Note the the question > > is not conditional. We will have the ability to do this. We could > > get into discussions as to whether or not the entity is a "greater" > > or "lesser" Sasha. I would argue that the wold is a lesser place > > with Sasha in absence, and thus we should seek to fill that void. > > > > You can't, regardless of computational capacity. The vast majority of > the information is gone. It would require time-travel to regain it. > Anything less is a simulacrum acting sort of like some people remember > Sasha acting some of the time. I would argue that the world will be a > better place when we focus on what is actually doable even in theory > and let go of what we can do nothing about. We might want to start > with what is most critical to do something about now or real soon now. > > - samantha From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jan 1 10:04:23 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:04:23 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] French marchers say 'non' to 2007 Message-ID: <3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6222153.stm French marchers say 'non' to 2007 Hundreds of protestors in France have rung in the New Year by holding a light-hearted march against it. Parodying the French readiness to say "non", the demonstrators in the western city of Nantes waved banners reading: "No to 2007" and "Now is better!" The marchers called on governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race" and declare a moratorium on the future. The protest was held in the rain and organisers joked that even the weather was against the New Year. The tension mounted as the minutes ticked away towards midnight - but the arrival of 2007 did nothing to dampen their enthusiasm. The protesters began to chant: "No to 2008!" They vowed to stage a similar protest on 31 December 2007 on the Champs-Elysees avenue in Paris. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 10:59:36 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 10:59:36 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> Will it ever be possible to bring back people like Sasha? I don't know. There's nothing in our current understanding of physical law that would permit such a thing even in principle, but we don't know everything about how the universe works; maybe some future understanding will give a different verdict. But it's not something that merits argument. There's a distinction to be drawn between ultimate vision and current effort. Most people (myself included) need some sort of transcendent vision to inspire them to work towards a brighter future. Different visions work for different people; the idea that our dead might ultimately be restored is a beautiful one, and will be all the more so if it turns out to be true; let those of us who can't quite believe it acknowledge the unknowability and hold onto something that does work for us. The environmentalists have a saying: think globally, act locally. That's exactly what we need to do, except in time rather than space. Let's not confuse the ultimate and the imminent; rather let our transcendent visions inspire us to work on projects that can be realistically accomplished in the foreseeable future. Does it make sense to work today on a resurrection machine? No. Does it make sense to work today on, say, molecular electronic computers, with the idea that they might be a step on the road that eventually leads to the dead being restored - and will have a lot of other applications before then? Absolutely. "Think globally, act locally" - I wish I were that good at coining phrases! It would be nice if we did have an equally snappy temporal version - any ideas anyone? Happy 2007! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jan 1 11:04:16 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:04:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] global warming eats island In-Reply-To: <200701010420.l014KNmH004264@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20061231145953.03ab87f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200701010420.l014KNmH004264@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070101110416.GE6974@leitl.org> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 08:18:56PM -0800, spike wrote: > Cool it a bit? Why? I woulda said warm it a bit. Because shifting precipitation patterns could mean crop failure and starvation to hundreds millions of people. Because they would further destabilize the already taxed global ecosystem. Because they could cause a runaway methane clathrate melt. Because [...]. While we don't have the technology to insulate each individual human from these changes, we should homeostate the climate where 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 pgptag at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 11:09:24 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:09:24 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520701010309k46734dfbja8f3f1544637b290@mail.gmail.com> "Think big, act small" may work for both space and time. I completely agree with what you say. The idea that they might be a step on the road that eventually leads to the dead being restored may be a powerful motivation (for some) to do their best at developing today's molecular electronic computers. G. On 1/1/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > Will it ever be possible to bring back people like Sasha? I don't know. > There's nothing in our current understanding of physical law that would > permit such a thing even in principle, but we don't know everything about > how the universe works; maybe some future understanding will give a > different verdict. > > But it's not something that merits argument. There's a distinction to be > drawn between ultimate vision and current effort. > > Most people (myself included) need some sort of transcendent vision to > inspire them to work towards a brighter future. Different visions work for > different people; the idea that our dead might ultimately be restored is a > beautiful one, and will be all the more so if it turns out to be true; let > those of us who can't quite believe it acknowledge the unknowability and > hold onto something that does work for us. > > The environmentalists have a saying: think globally, act locally. That's > exactly what we need to do, except in time rather than space. Let's not > confuse the ultimate and the imminent; rather let our transcendent visions > inspire us to work on projects that can be realistically accomplished in the > foreseeable future. Does it make sense to work today on a resurrection > machine? No. Does it make sense to work today on, say, molecular electronic > computers, with the idea that they might be a step on the road that > eventually leads to the dead being restored - and will have a lot of other > applications before then? Absolutely. > > "Think globally, act locally" - I wish I were that good at coining phrases! > It would be nice if we did have an equally snappy temporal version - any > ideas anyone? > > Happy 2007! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jan 1 12:30:13 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 06:30:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] LINK: BlogNomic Message-ID: <5366105b0701010430h66ff819aid72a09e543b2d209@mail.gmail.com> Monday, 1 January 2007 Hello all: Some of you might have already seen this in your respective del.icio.us inboxes. http://blognomic.com/ http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ Anyone have any experience with this, or any other recent instance of Nomic? -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 1 17:17:18 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:17:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [wta-talk] WANTED: Extropy Conference Proceedings and Audio Recordings. In-Reply-To: <5366105b0612311554x3c05160ja1abe731cd2ae432@mail.gmail.com > References: <5366105b0612311554x3c05160ja1abe731cd2ae432@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101111652.042099e0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 05:54 PM 12/31/2006, Jay Dugger wrote: >Sunday, 31 December 2006 > >Hello all: > >If anyone has proceedings or audio recordings of the Extropy >conferences, please contact me off-list. Okay :-) 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 natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 1 17:34:59 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:34:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] test Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101113449.040b2998@pop-server.austin.rr.com> From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 1 16:59:39 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 10:59:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.co m> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101105805.04209f88@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Remembering to quote Sasha in our writings, credit him for his ideas, and love him is one way that we can keep him alive. 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 natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 1 17:35:52 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:35:52 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] French marchers say 'non' to 2007 Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101113545.0424ae48@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:04 AM 1/1/2007, Anders Sandberg wrote: >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6222153.stm > >French marchers say 'non' to 2007 > >Hundreds of protestors in France have rung in the New Year by holding a >light-hearted march against it. > >Parodying the French readiness to say "non", the demonstrators in the >western city of Nantes waved banners reading: "No to 2007" and "Now is >better!" > >The marchers called on governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race" >and declare a moratorium on the future. "The name Fonacon comes from the group's title - Front d'opposition ? la nouvelle ann?e and Comit? d'Organistion National (acronym "con", which means daft). The organisers, who prefer to remain anonymous, say it is illogical that people should celebrate the passing of time. The ending of a year is another step towards the grave and therefore a tragedy, not a cause for joy. "The idea, which began in the village of Chauch?, south of Nantes last year, was launched nationally at a spoof 'terrorist' press conference. The members of the anti-New Year front, including several otherwise conventional local businessmen and women, dressed up in hoods and masks." But it is not just the future I am learning. It is to also about stopping aging and death! The irony is that while this may seem like a anti-future(ist) trend, it may very well be transhumanist in part. Please read on: "'It is about time that the passage of time ended,' said one of the hooded organisers. 'We are fed up with getting older. Why should we follow the fashion? The planet is getting older and warmer. Not us. Stop this mad race towards death.'" 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 natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 1 17:50:41 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:50:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Biotech Era only part of the concept Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101114413.0405a328@pop-server.austin.rr.com> The phrase "Biotech Era" is used to reference biotechnology as the use of living organisms to produce engineered products that can modify health or the environment through molecular, cell and structural biologysuch as recombinant DNA-based drugs, gene therapy, monoclonal antibodies, engineered proteins and tissues, liposomes and other drug delivery systems, and agricultural as well as industrial products. (ref. Dr. Authur Levine). But this does not adequately describe the methods for developing the transhuman -posthuman body/mind (material (embodied) or immaterial) and tools or methods for protecting/sustaining the environment. What phrase or term is used to reference the era of using biotech, nanotech, AI, AGI, and robotics to produce engineered products that can modify health or the environment? 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 natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 1 17:35:37 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:35:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101113529.04158008@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Remembering to quote Sasha in our writings, credit him for his ideas, and love him is one way that we can keep him alive. 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 18:31:11 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:31:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:00:26 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > gts wrote: > >> Which statement is most true? >> >> A) E is frequent because it is probable. >> B) E is probable because it is frequent. > > It would be helpful, highlighted by the example of (A), to clarify the > complementary usage of "probability" and "likelihood". Once again, > clear terminology is vital... The purpose of my question is to help the reader discover on his own which of the two objectivist interpretations of probability he is likely to prefer (while leaving open the question of subjective/epistemic interpretations). I could write (A) as "E is frequent because it is has a high propensity to occur" but this would at least partially defeat the purpose of the exercise. (But now the cat is out of the bag in any case. So much for the Socratic method. :) (A) seems most correct to me, but I wonder if perhaps others here might disagree. Certainly frequency theorists would prefer (B). -gts From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 1 18:54:42 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 13:54:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > 1) The Logical Theory, in which probability is defined as a degree of > rational belief (Keynes). > > 2) The Subjective Theory, in which probability is a degree of belief of a > particular individual (Ramsey, De Finetti). The most consistent interpretational approach, I believe, is a fusion of the Subjective Theory and Logical Theory as enabled by Cox's Theorem. I.e., a probability is a crude way of encapsulating a degree of belief of a particular individual. And, if an individual is completely rational, then their degrees of belief will completely obey the laws of probability. If an individual is partially rational, then their degrees of belief will partially obey the laws of probability. For instance, no highly resource constrained mind is going to be able to fully obey the third assumption of Cox's Theorem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox's_theorem thus perfect probabilism is only for unrealistically resource-enabled minds like Hutter's AIXItl. > Consider a frequent event (E), such as 'Rain in the Amazon Rain Forest'. > > Which statement is most true? > > A) E is frequent because it is probable. > B) E is probable because it is frequent. E is rationally estimated as probable in the future, because it has been observed as frequent in the past. A related point is that single-number probabilities are not necessarily the best way to describe a system's degree of belief. Keynes suggested interval probabilities, and in the Novamente AI system we work with what we now call "indefinite probabilities", intervals [L,U] with the interpretation "I estimate that, after N more observations, my probability estimate of the event E will lie in the interval [L,U] with probability b." This is a more sophisticated approach than Keynes' interval probabilities or Walley's imprecise probabilities but with a similar underlying philosophy. -- Ben From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 1 19:21:17 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:21:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: gts wrote: > On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:00:26 -0500, Jef Allbright > > wrote: > > > gts wrote: > > > >> Which statement is most true? > >> > >> A) E is frequent because it is probable. > >> B) E is probable because it is frequent. > > > > It would be helpful, highlighted by the example of (A), to > clarify the > > complementary usage of "probability" and "likelihood". Once again, > > clear terminology is vital... > > The purpose of my question is to help the reader discover on > his own which of the two objectivist interpretations of > probability he is likely to prefer (while leaving open the > question of subjective/epistemic interpretations). > > I could write (A) as "E is frequent because it is has a high > propensity to occur" but this would at least partially defeat > the purpose of the exercise. > > (But now the cat is out of the bag in any case. So much for > the Socratic method. :) > > (A) seems most correct to me, but I wonder if perhaps others > here might disagree. Certainly frequency theorists would prefer (B). I recall that you and I could never agree on the (in)validity of qualia as a practical statement about "reality". Do you think this is a variation on that theme? Your statement (A) seems to me to be flawed, i.e. it's not a matter of preference between (A) and (B), since (A) doesn't even make sense. If (A) were rephrased as "E is frequent because it is likely", or better yet "E is more frequent because it is more likely", then there would be something meaningful to consider, but as it currently expressed it seems to imply that an objective measurement is "because" of a subjective assessment. I have a different problem with (B) due to frequentist probability being less complete than Bayesian probability. - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 1 20:14:24 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:14:24 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sorry for double postings Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101141244.03fe57c8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> ... but pleased to wish you all the very best for 2007 - Happy New Year! 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 jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 1 20:42:49 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:42:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian predictions for 2007? Message-ID: How about getting predictions from members of the extropy list with regard to extropic advances expected in 2007? I'll begin: Subject area: Information technology/Search Prediction: Various companies will offer practical implementations of a more intelligent generation of search engine incorporating dynamic collaborative resources to improve both relevance and salience. For example, extracting dynamic information from blogs and news feeds to apply to more traditional search results. The key question for me is how quickly this will become effective for general searches rather than search focused on selected topics. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Jan 1 21:55:13 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:55:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.co m> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070101111837.03b422b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:59 AM 1/1/2007 +0000, Russell wrote: snip >Most people (myself included) need some sort of transcendent vision to >inspire them to work towards a brighter future. Different visions work for >different people; the idea that our dead might ultimately be restored is a >beautiful one, and will be all the more so if it turns out to be true; let >those of us who can't quite believe it acknowledge the unknowability and >hold onto something that does work for us. Cryonics might not work, but it's the best chance we know about to preserve information. In terms of "acting locally" you can't get more local than making arrangements for yourself! How many on this list are signed up? The rest of you want to make a New Year's resolution? Keith From jonkc at att.net Mon Jan 1 21:52:48 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:52:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable? References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> "scerir" > I agree that MWI has nothing to do with consciousness > and 'human' observation OK. > It seems difficult to believe that MWI has nothing > to do with measurements. No measurements no probabilities. It may be hard to believe but it's every bit as consistent as Copenhagen. In Copenhagen before a measurement is made the cat is both alive and dead; in Many Worlds the cat is either alive or dead. True, we will need a measurement to find out which state the cat is in, but our observation will not effect the cat. > My question was: what about the MWI now? > Can it explain what happens, avoiding > the role of the consciousness/knowledge > of the observer? In your thought experiment in one universe a particle hits a small target and is absorbed, in another it does not hit the target, so that is when they split because the universes are no longer identical; one has a particle still moving in it and one does not. If an observer does not see it hit the small target he knows he is not living in one of the universes where it did, if a coconut doesn't hit me on the head I know I'm not living in a universe where it did. So What? When a conscious observer can figure out which universe he is living in depends on how far he is from the target, if he is looking at it, if he is thinking about it, how fast he can think, and various other irrelevant factors. Universes split when they become different, they merge when they become the same, and measurement doesn't enter into it. Do the two-slit experiment, but instead of using film to stop the photon after it pass the slits, let it head out into infinite space. If Many Worlds is correct the entire universe splits into 2 when the photon hit's the 2 slits, and never recombines. There is nothing special about you the observer, you split just like everything else, you know that the photon went through one and only one slit, but of course you have no way of knowing which one. Now let's do the more usual two-split experiment and put the film back in. The universe splits just as it did before when it passed the two slits, but when the photon hits the film and it no longer exists in either universe then the 2 are identical and fuse back together again. Looking back we find evidence that the photon (or electron) went through both slits and this causes an interference pattern. Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick wall instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon makes a record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. Mind has nothing to do with any of this so I don't need to explain it, or measurement, or record, or observation, or consciousness. That is a very very big advantage! Yes I have a truly marvelous proof of all these propositions, but unfortunately the margin of this post is too narrow to contain it. John K Clark jonkc at att.net From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 1 22:03:34 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:03:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com> On 1/1/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > Will it ever be possible to bring back people like Sasha? I don't know. > There's nothing in our current understanding of physical law that would > permit such a thing even in principle, According to my understanding of quantum theory, this is not the case. Our current understanding of physical law **does** seem to permit this in principle. Quantum measurement theory, in the decoherence interpretation which is the current near-consensus, states that when a quantum system couples with its environment (thus decohering its quantum state), massive information about its state is encoded in the environment in subtle but in-principle decodable ways. An implication would be that essentially full information about Sasha Chislenko is contained in the universe, encoded in the perturbation-patterns of various particles that are now distributed all over the place. A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it, but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the decoherence interpretation are correct. I agree with Samantha however that this is not the best place to focus our efforts right now. My vote in this regard is with AGI development as many of you already know. -- Ben Goertzel From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 1 22:04:03 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:04:03 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101160332.04406350@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 03:55 PM 1/1/2007, Keith wrote: >How many on this list are signed up? I have been since 1991. 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 randall at randallsquared.com Mon Jan 1 22:41:50 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:41:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable? - Randall In-Reply-To: <000201c72bfd$a9ea66e0$3abc1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com><000201c72914$41b11ec0$8c911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <9F17BE84-2363-4722-9A08-386DB0FE1F5F@randallsquared.com> <000201c72bfd$a9ea66e0$3abc1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <0D7EF38D-52E4-44BC-A9A4-5B8F6900E794@randallsquared.com> On Dec 30, 2006, at 5:31 AM, scerir wrote: > Randall Randall: >> Really? What simple experiments? > > (I think I've already posted this here. > Not sure though. Maybe in another world!) Heh. My "Really?" was delayed by a very long time, such that you'd answered and your answer had spawned a long thread by the time my post made it to the list. I'm having some ongoing trouble posting to the list, marked by getting bounces or delay notices, and so I'm bcc'ing this to you as well. > Since the MWI picture of the 'splitting' is based > on measurements, and since here, at t1, no measurement > whatsoever occurs (the charged particle does not hit > the scintillating surface m at time t1; the charged > particle will hit a face of the box only at time > t2 > t1) we can say that MWI is not an 'ontological' > interpretation. [2] > > Any solution, or hint, is wellcome. I'm not deeply familiar with MWI, but I don't think it requires measurements to have been made. I thought it was the case that the universe branches at every possible quantum decision, with every possible choice being taken. No doubt this is a simplistic (or just wrong) view, but it wouldn't have any trouble with your experiment, because the decisions about which way the particle goes was made for the universe you are in when the particle went that way. So "waves" are the result of making measurements which do not precisely distinguish what universe you're actually in, and measurements on the particles themselves don't show any waves. It will be clear from the above that I'm no physicist, of course; this is just what I think I understand about the MWI view. -- Randall Randall "If you are trying to produce a commercial product in a timely and cost efficient way, it is not good to have somebody's PhD research on your critical path." -- Chip Morningstar From jonkc at att.net Mon Jan 1 23:33:12 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 18:33:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?. References: Message-ID: <01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> gts wrote: > Which statement is most true? > A) E is frequent because it is probable. > B) E is probable because it is frequent. If Copenhagen is right then something is frequent because it is probable. If Many Worlds is right then something is probable because it is frequent. But that introduces an interesting matter. I could be dead wrong, believe it or not I've been wrong before, but it seems to me that if Many World is right there may be a ten hundred thousand million billion trillion goggle googolplex (googolplex is one followed by a googol zeroes, goggle is 1 followed by a hundred zeros) to the googolplex power, to the googolplex power, to the googolplex power, to the googolplex power, number of universes. But there can't be a INFINITE number of universes. In MWI everything is possible, but everybody knows some things are more likely than others; it is possible for a tornado to enter a junkyard and assemble a fully functional Bowing 747, but it is astronomically unlikely that you are lucky enough to be living in such a astoundingly rare universe. The trouble is, funny things happen when you introduce infinity to statistics and probability. If there are ten hundred thousand million billion trillion universes where a tornado does such an extraordinary thing and a infinite number where it does not, then the probably you will be living in such a wonderful universe are zero, not almost zero, but absolutely precisely exactly ZERO. If you want infinite universes then you need statistical mathematics that can accommodate infinity, we don't have that yet. John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 00:09:07 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:09:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:21:17 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > I recall that you and I could never agree on the (in)validity of qualia > as a practical statement about "reality". Do you think this is a > variation on that theme? Hmm, I doubt the two subjects have much in common, though it's an interesting thought! > ... (A) doesn't even make sense... > ... as it currently expressed it seems to imply that an objective > measurement is "because" of a subjective assessment. Really? Here is statement (A) again: "E is frequent because it is probable." Here is the fully expanded version: "Rain happens relatively frequently in the Amazon Rain Forest because rain there is relatively probable." (The propensity theorists nod their heads in agreement. The frequency theorists say no, that can't be so, because in their view probability is defined as relative frequency and so cannot be the cause of it.) I see no implication in my words that "probable" must be either a subjective or an objective assessment, any more than "frequent" must be a subjective or objective assessment. You do realize I hope that neither the propensity theory nor the frequency theory define 'probability' (or 'probable') as a subjective assessment. On both views we can speak of events being 'probable' or 'frequent' without compromising the objectivist nature of the theories. We need only stipulate some minimum objective relative frequency to define 'frequent' and some minimum objective propensity to define 'probable'. This is implied but not explicit in my question. I think you want to discuss and defend subjective Bayesianism, which is fine, but a direct lead-in to that debate was not my desire or intention. As I tried to explain in my last message, the purpose of my simple question, (written in the common parlance in which 'likely' and 'probable' are synonyms!!), is to help the reader discover on his own a preference for one or another *objectivist* interpretation, while leaving open the question of subjectivism for some future exchange of messages. -gts From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 2 00:40:46 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:40:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Douglas Engelhart Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101183957.030760e8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Does anyone have the email address of Douglas Engelhart? If so, please email to me privately. 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 spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jan 2 00:48:02 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 16:48:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070101111837.03b422b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200701020053.l020rMAj028338@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > > In terms of "acting locally" you can't get more local than making > arrangements for yourself! > > How many on this list are signed up? > > The rest of you want to make a New Year's resolution? > > Keith Hey Keith, suppose we do want to sign up. Can you or others here offer a top level view of the choices we have, the approximate costs, how much of that we need now and how much we need later, etc. Is Alcor still the favored outfit? Where are they located now? spike From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jan 2 01:42:46 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:42:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: gts wrote: > As I tried to explain in my last message, the purpose of my > simple question, (written in the common parlance in which > 'likely' and 'probable' > are synonyms!!), is to help the reader discover on his own a > preference for one or another *objectivist* interpretation, > while leaving open the question of subjectivism for some > future exchange of messages. Yes, I would assert that in a very deep sense all statements of probability entail a subjective viewpoint and that *ideally* the assessed probability will match the actual likelihood. I'll stand back, but unfortunately not far enough back to have an objective game of dice with God. ;-) - Jef From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 01:55:07 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:55:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070102015508.13477.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > "Think globally, act locally" - I wish I were that > good at coining phrases! > It would be nice if we did have an equally snappy > temporal version - any > ideas anyone? How about: Plan for the future, live in the moment. > Happy 2007! You too. :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Aagghh! Who knew that bio-engineered food would lead to smart puke." -Willy the school janitor from the Simpsons. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 03:07:00 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 22:07:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?. In-Reply-To: <01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <62c14240701011907i3744fc72wc2f55231a14e894a@mail.gmail.com> On 1/1/07, John K Clark wrote: > > gts wrote: > > > Which statement is most true? > > A) E is frequent because it is probable. > > B) E is probable because it is frequent. > > If Copenhagen is right then something is frequent because it is probable. > If > Many Worlds is right then something is probable because it is frequent. > > trillion universes where a tornado does such an extraordinary thing and a > infinite number where it does not, then the probably you will be living in > such a wonderful universe are zero, not almost zero, but absolutely > precisely exactly ZERO. If you want infinite universes then you need > statistical mathematics that can accommodate infinity, we don't have that > yet. > It's not called Infinite Worlds, just "Many" Worlds. I think 'many' is a fairly subjective term. Is it possible that there are an infinite number of possibilities, but the workspace/array to hold the number of eigenstates being tested is limited to your *really big* number? Perhaps there is a yet unknown bound for the number of possible states relative to the total energy in the system being measured. Intuitively, there seem to be moments where there is some optimization shortcuts in the computation of the universe when nobody is even looking :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 2 04:15:43 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:15:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <200701020053.l020rMAj028338@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070101111837.03b422b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070101204657.03b62cc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:48 PM 1/1/2007 -0800, spike wrote: >Hey Keith, suppose we do want to sign up. Can you or others here offer a >top level view of the choices we have, the approximate costs, how much of >that we need now and how much we need later, etc. Check out www.alcor.org If that doesn't answer all your questions, let me know. >Is Alcor still the favored outfit? Yes if you have the money. They are more expensive. >Where are they located now? Arizona From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 04:17:21 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:17:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com> References: <638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:54:42 -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > The most consistent interpretational approach, I believe, is a fusion > of the Subjective Theory and Logical Theory as enabled by Cox's > Theorem. Thanks. Interesting! I know nothing of Cox's theorem, and so I'll need to study it before I can comment. In the meantime I should correct something I wrote earlier about the logical theory: I wrote, "[the logical theory] will be seen as either epistemic or objective depending on one's conviction concerning the alleged objective neo-platonic reality of logic." I meant something more like: "[the logical theory] can be seen either as subjective or objective depending on one's conviction concerning the alleged objective neo-platonic reality of logic, but in either case it can be considered epistemic." -gts From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Jan 2 05:33:43 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 00:33:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Vintage Cartoons for your holiday Message-ID: <18309945.1859771167716023074.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >What's Opera Doc? (1957) >http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=cfaf9b53f177c714363e3ae15d68903c.79e4167a >bfb722243c59a5ad326f8edf > >One Froggy Evening (1956) >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saU-Bl0feSs Excellent list, Amara! I have to say that "One Froggy Evening" is perhaps the most perfect piece of visual storytelling ever made. It is funny for all ages, concise, elegant, has no dialogue (except for the frog's singing) and therefore is accessible to all. It's also profound. It relates a great truth about human behavior that resonates far into the future (as depicted at the end by a future construction worker in a glass bubble-helmet) -- wishful thinking and greed destroys us, yet it makes the world go round. Time may pass and technology may change, but our self-destructive human foibles are still with us. Ain't it the truth. "What's Opera Doc?" is my other favorite cartoon of all time -- a perfect marriage of high culture and low humor. And Bugs Bunny in drag (and in this one, Valkyrie drag at that) is one of the few cultural icons we can proudly pass down to our descendents. If you've never seen these, you are missing out on two major pieces of animation history. And if you've seen better motion picture storytelling, I'd like to know where. The incomparable Chuck Jones wrote and directed both. What a genius. He's on my personal short list of those I'd like to bring back from the dead. F@#%ing genius. Wishing you all a wonderful 2007, PJ From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 1 17:09:30 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:09:30 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] French marchers say 'non' to 2007 In-Reply-To: <3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 04:04 AM 1/1/2007, Anders Sandberg wrote: >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6222153.stm > >French marchers say 'non' to 2007 > >Hundreds of protestors in France have rung in the New Year by holding a >light-hearted march against it. > >Parodying the French readiness to say "non", the demonstrators in the >western city of Nantes waved banners reading: "No to 2007" and "Now is >better!" > >The marchers called on governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race" >and declare a moratorium on the future. "The name Fonacon comes from the group's title - Front d'opposition ? la nouvelle ann?e and Comit? d'Organistion National (acronym "con", which means daft). The organisers, who prefer to remain anonymous, say it is illogical that people should celebrate the passing of time. The ending of a year is another step towards the grave and therefore a tragedy, not a cause for joy. "The idea, which began in the village of Chauch?, south of Nantes last year, was launched nationally at a spoof 'terrorist' press conference. The members of the anti-New Year front, including several otherwise conventional local businessmen and women, dressed up in hoods and masks." But it is not just the future I am learning. It is to also about stopping aging and death! The irony is that while this may seem like a anti-future(ist) trend, it may very well be transhumanist in part. Please read on: "'It is about time that the passage of time ended,' said one of the hooded organisers. 'We are fed up with getting older. Why should we follow the fashion? The planet is getting older and warmer. Not us. Stop this mad race towards death.'" 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 natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 2 17:34:20 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:34:20 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] French marchers say 'non' to 2007 In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070102113411.041b5450@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Forgot to add url http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2060006.ece At 11:09 AM 1/1/2007, you wrote: >At 04:04 AM 1/1/2007, Anders Sandberg wrote: > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6222153.stm >> >>French marchers say 'non' to 2007 >> >>Hundreds of protestors in France have rung in the New Year by holding a >>light-hearted march against it. >> >>Parodying the French readiness to say "non", the demonstrators in the >>western city of Nantes waved banners reading: "No to 2007" and "Now is >>better!" >> >>The marchers called on governments and the UN to stop time's "mad race" >>and declare a moratorium on the future. >"The name Fonacon comes from the group's title - Front d'opposition ? la >nouvelle ann?e and Comit? d'Organistion National (acronym "con", which >means daft). The organisers, who prefer to remain anonymous, say it is >illogical that people should celebrate the passing of time. The ending of >a year is another step towards the grave and therefore a tragedy, not a >cause for joy. >"The idea, which began in the village of Chauch?, south of Nantes last >year, was launched nationally at a spoof 'terrorist' press conference. The >members of the anti-New Year front, including several otherwise >conventional local businessmen and women, dressed up in hoods and masks." > >But it is not just the future I am learning. It is to also about stopping >aging and death! The irony is that while this may seem like a >anti-future(ist) trend, it may very well be transhumanist in part. Please >read on: >"'It is about time that the passage of time ended,' said one of the hooded >organisers. 'We are fed up with getting older. Why should we follow the >fashion? The planet is getting older and warmer. Not us. Stop this mad >race towards death.'" > >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 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 scerir at libero.it Tue Jan 2 20:43:54 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:43:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable? References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com><003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex> >> It seems difficult to believe that MWI has nothing >> to do with measurements. John writes: > It may be hard to believe but it's every bit > as consistent as Copenhagen. In Copenhagen before > a measurement is made the cat is both alive and dead; > in Many Worlds the cat is either alive or dead. > True, we will need a measurement to find out > which state the cat is in, but our observation > will not effect the cat. [...] This is correct. But I would say that in Copenhagen a quantum state is more 'available information' (hence the collapse) than physical entity. On the contrary, in MWI it is a physical entity. Of course, there are 'nuances' both in the Copenhagen and in the MWI. >From the 'Everett faq' I get (if I understand what I read) that measurement causes the 'split' [1]. More carefully Bryce deWitt, in his last paper, writes (following Everett and Wheeler) that the total state vector |Psi> takes the form |Psi> = Sum_s c_s |s> |Phi(s)> which means that, relative to each system state |s>, the apparatus state, represented by the vector |Phi>, as a result of a _coupling_ between the state and the apparatus, goes into the corresponding state |Phi(s)>. All the possible outcomes of the measurement are contained in the superposition above, weighted by coefficients c_s determined by the system state vector. So, according to deWitt, it is more a _coupling_ than a measurement. Having in mind the infamous example we can write |Psi> = c_1 |p. hits scintill.1 at t1>|flash at t1> c_2 |p. hits scintill.2 at t2>|flash at t2>. I have no problem with that. But if in MWI "the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is sufficient as it stands. No metaphysics needs to be added to it." (deWitt) and "the mathematical formalism of the quantum theory is capable of yielding its own interpretation." (deWitt) it seems to me that MWI (not to mention Copenhagen!) does not tell us what happens between times t1 and t2 (in the usual laboratory frame, but we can choose a different reference frame) of the example above. This is not the only problem I have with the MWI. Another problem I have is the one-slit diffraction (different from the two-slit interference) since the 'splitting' must have a rather complex dynamics. Another problem is with the diffraction in time (one-slit moving very fast, up and down, so that we get interference on the screen because we cannot know if the photon entered the slit when it was up or when it was down). Regards, s. [1] "The wavefunction obeys the empirically derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all times. The observer plays no special role in the theory and, consequently, there is no collapse of the wavefunction. For non-relativistic systems the Schrodinger wave equation is a good approximation to reality. The rest of the theory is just working out consequences of the above assumptions. Measurements and observations by a subject on an object are modelled by applying the wave equation to the joint subject-object system. Some consequences are: 1) That each measurement causes a decomposition or decoherence of the universal wavefunction into non-interacting and mostly non-interfering branches, histories or worlds. The histories form a branching tree which encompasses all the possible outcomes of each interaction. Every historical what-if compatible with the initial conditions and physical law is realised. 2) That the conventional statistical Born interpretation of the amplitudes in quantum theory is derived from within the theory rather than having to be assumed as an additional axiom." From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 2 22:32:32 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:32:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable? References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com><003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex><01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> <002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex> Message-ID: <004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer> "scerir" > in Copenhagen a quantum state is more 'available information' (hence the > collapse) than physical entity. On the contrary, in MWI it is a physical > entity. If there are 2 competing theories and one deals more with physical entities than the other I would say it is the superior theory; the name of the science after all is "physics". Abstraction for abstraction's sake just does not thrill me. > From the 'Everett faq' I get (if I understand what I read) that > measurement causes the 'split' Well, from the faq you included in your post I read "The wavefunction obeys the empirically derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all times. The observer plays no special role in the theory and, consequently, there is no collapse of the wavefunction." That sure doesn't sound to me like that supports your position. To be fair it also says "each measurement causes a decomposition or decoherence of the universal wavefunction into non-interacting and mostly non-interfering branches, histories or worlds." How do I explain that? As I said before when you make a measurement the important thing is not that you now have a record of some sort, the important thing is that you changed something. You can replace that super sophisticated, hyper expensive, extraordinarily wonderful, photographic film with a wall made of donkey dung, and it will make no difference, both will stop a photon and cause a universe to split. > So, according to deWitt, it is more a _coupling_ than a measurement. Exactly. A photon's quantum properties are coupled to a wall of donkey dung in one universe and not coupled to a wall of donkey dung in another; so the universes split. > it seems to me that MWI (not to mention Copenhagen!) does not tell us what > happens between times t1 and t2 Please name the observation you have recorded during that interval that Copenhagen can explain but Many Worlds cannot. > Another problem I have is the one-slit diffraction (different from the two-slit interference) Things are indeed a bit more complex when dealing with diffraction rather that interference, and if Copenhagen can explain what is going on more clearly than Many Worlds then I have lost the argument. But can it? One theory must explain the complex dynamics between one universe and another; the other theory must explain the complex dynamics between what is real and what is not. I'm not a gambler and I could be wrong, but I know where I'd put my money. Best regards. And I want you to know I'm really enjoying this debate; regardless if I end up winning or losing I want you to know I think you are a fine fellow. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 2 22:57:43 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (thespike at satx.rr.com) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:57:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable? In-Reply-To: <004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer> References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> <002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: John K Clark Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2007 4:46 pm > "scerir" > > it seems to me that MWI (not to mention Copenhagen!) does not > > tell us what happens between times t1 and t2 > Please name the observation you have recorded during that interval > thatCopenhagen can explain but Many Worlds cannot. Well, he can't, because he just lumped them together as two interpretations unable to do so. Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 2 23:39:03 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:39:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Now this is a really interesting new thread for 2007! > Of course I agree with Samantha that resurrecting the dead is not > doable with any of the technologies we are even remotely able to > imagine at this moment. The vast majority of the information is > indeed, according to our current knowledge of physics, gone. But > "there are more things in heaven and earth...". > Regaining the information would not require time travel, but only the > ability to retrieve information from the past, which is not the same > thing. Information transfer from the past to the future does not > create logical paradoxes. How exactly would you retrieve this rather dense amount of information from the past without going back to when it was still coherently available? > And come to that, full time travel itself does not create logical > paradoxes in the MWI. This may not help you. By MWI as I understand it your time travel would branch the universe or some subset thereof so you could not bring information back to the same branch you started from. > If something is not against the fundamental laws of physics, sooner or > later engineers will find a way to do it. So, having never met Sasha, > I look forward to meeting him in a few thousands of years. Even granting that we do not yet know the truly fundamental laws of physics it is not certain that engineers will find a way to do all things that are possible to the degree of actually making doing them practical or the results of doing them sufficiently good. Not all things that can be done are worth the expense needed to do them or are seen as good or advantageous to do. But that is another subject in this area. > - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 2 23:48:25 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:48:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2007, at 10:31 AM, gts wrote: > On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:00:26 -0500, Jef Allbright > > wrote: > >> gts wrote: >> >>> Which statement is most true? >>> >>> A) E is frequent because it is probable. >>> B) E is probable because it is frequent. >> Neither. An event that can by its nature only occur once or a very rarely in a very large period of time may still be quite probable that it will occur. For instance, it is extremely probable that our sun will some day exhaust its primary fuel and become a white dwarf. - samantha From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 23:21:52 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:21:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com> References: <638d4e150701011054n6f42ea26s9bc1a9cb9edc24e3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:54:42 -0500, Ben Goertzel wrote: > The most consistent interpretational approach, I believe, is a fusion > of the Subjective Theory and Logical Theory as enabled by Cox's > Theorem. As promised I looked into this subject of Cox's Theorem. Thanks again for mentioning it. As I understand now, and I hope you will correct me if I'm wrong, the "fusion of the Subjective Theory and Logical Theory" to which you refer is none other than what is more commonly known both as Objective Bayesianism and Logical Bayesianism (as distinct from Subjective Bayesianism). Yes? If so then this is an interpretation about which I had already done some reading [1]. I had rejected it on the grounds that it depends on The Principle of Indifference, which leads to many unsolved and possibly unsolvable paradoxes. Was I wrong? Here is what I mean by the Principle of Indifference leading to unsolved paradoxes: First a definition of The Principle of Indifference: "When there is no evidence favoring one possibility over another, the possibilities have the same probability." For example if you have no knowledge about a coin's fairness or lack of fairness then it makes sense (seemingly) to assign equal probabilities to heads and to tails. You don't know if it's fair or not, and assuming it's not fair then you still don't know if it favors heads or if it favors tails. So we apply the principle of indifference and assign 50% probability to heads and 50% probability to tails. Logical, yes? So it would seem. However this kind of thinking leads to paradoxes like the following (adapted from something I read on some forgotten web page)... A factory produces cubes with side-length between 0 and 1 foot; what is the probability that a randomly chosen cube has side-length between 0 and 1/2 a foot? The tempting answer is 1/2, as we imagine a process of production that is uniformly distributed over side-length. But the question could have been given an equivalent restatement: A factory produces cubes with face-area between 0 and 1 square-feet; what is the probability that a randomly chosen cube has face-area between 0 and 1/4 square-feet? Now the tempting answer is 1/4, as we imagine a process of production that is uniformly distributed over face-area. The problem could have been restated equivalently again: A factory produces cubes with volume between 0 and 1 cubic feet; what is the probability that a randomly chosen cube has volume between 0 and 1/8 cubic-feet? Now the tempting answer is 1/8, as we imagine a process of production that is uniformly distributed over volume. And so on for all of the infinitely many equivalent reformulations of the problem (in terms of the fourth, fifth, ? power of the length, and indeed in terms of every non-zero real-valued exponent of the length). What, then, is the probability of the event in question??? --- So, although the principle of indifference seems "logical", I think it fails on closer inspection. (I understand Jaynes tried with some apparent success to solve a related paradox, but from what I understand his solution has no universal application.) -gts 1. Gillies, D. (2000). Philosophical Theories of Probability. New York, NY: Routledge. From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jan 2 23:53:32 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:53:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote: > An implication would be that essentially full information about Sasha > Chislenko is contained in the universe, encoded in the > perturbation-patterns of various particles that are now distributed > all over the place. > > A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be > required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it, > but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the > decoherence interpretation are correct. > Regardless of the amount of computational and physical resources available there is no way to build a Sasha-bit detector with which to sort all this information without already having most of the Sasha relevant information. - samantha From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jan 3 00:06:59 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:06:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Music! How a tune sticks in your head In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070102113411.041b5450@pop-server.austin.rr.com > References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com > <3681.213.112.92.44.1167645863.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <6.2.1.2.2.20070101110436.04209cf8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070102185925.03b77fc0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> How a tune sticks in your head A rock producer turned McGill University professor is delving deep into the workings of the mind to see how a pop song uses emotions to embed itself in your memory, finds Clive Thompson http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/166594 This article is full of evolution/EP thinking. Such as this quip. :-) "I actually became a producer because I saw the producers getting all the babes," he said. "They were stealing them from the guitarists." and Not all of Levitin's idea have been easily accepted. He argues, for example, that music is an evolutionary adaptation: something that men developed as a way to demonstrate reproductive fitness. (Before you laugh, consider the sex lives of today's male rock stars.) I think you will enjoy it. Keith Henson From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 02:37:02 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:37:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:48:25 -0500, Samantha Atkins wrote: >>>> Which statement is most true? >>>> >>>> A) E is frequent because it is probable. >>>> B) E is probable because it is frequent. >>> > > Neither. An event that can by its nature only occur once or a very > rarely in a very large period of time may still be quite probable that > it will occur. For instance, it is extremely probable that our sun > will some day exhaust its primary fuel and become a white dwarf. You missed that E was defined previously as a 'frequent event', for example 'Rain in the Amazon Rain Forest'. However your point is still relevant. My interests in both the objective propensity theory and the subjective bayesianist theory stem from what I think is a failure of the more commonly held frequency theory to give an account of the probability of singular events. -gts From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Jan 3 03:16:19 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:16:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] nanoTX'07 In-Reply-To: References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> <003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> <002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <38558.72.236.103.90.1167794179.squirrel@main.nc.us> I just received an email from a distant family member.... who is working with this: http://www.nanotx.biz/ Figured it might be of interest to some here. :) Regards, MB From brent.allsop at comcast.net Wed Jan 3 04:37:14 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:37:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701030437.l034bVju006481@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Folks, I've been following this thread very closely, as it is a favorite topic of mine. I've been surprised that I haven't seen this topic covered more in groups like this. You guys all know much more about this kind of stuff than I do, and I really hunger for and appreciate all this new information! It looks like there is quite a large set of theories starting to form about what will and will not be possible - and the rational as to why. But there is clearly a lot of very "strong" POV on this topic that is hard to quantitatively measure right? Giulio, I read your article on Engineering Transcendance and agree with most everything you say. In your article you talk about "strong" thinking that might inspire others that are more traditionally religious that might need something more than what we traditional transhumanists seem to need. I am very happy to hear someone finally say something like this and have always believed that this is very important, and that there are a lot of people that need "saving", but there hasn't been what they require to get that saving. You mentioned writing a book on this topic. I think that would be great, but I also think there is something else that would help even more. Have you followed the threads to this group about the canonizer.com project I have been working for the past year? It is intended to be a wiki that handles POV information. There is a limited prototype running on test.canonizer.com, but don't expect much since this is the development version being worked on and will often be down or not completely functioning as we continue development. If you wrote a book on the topic of the possibility of resurrection, it would simply be yet another single persons POV on this very controversial issue. At best you might be able to include something like a "sympathetic" expression of points of view that are different than your own. Wouldn't it be much more powerful and accepted by everyone if there were some kind of collaboratively developed "topic" about this were all points of view could be adequately expressed, developed, and quantitatively tallied? Here is one possible POV structure layout we could start with on such a topic in the Canonizer: Topic name: Will there be any resurrection? 1. Yes a. Traditional Religious resurrection by God. b. Technological Resurrection. i. Only if cryonically preserved. ii. It is likely some way or another if we never give up. 2. No Each of these lines would be the "one line description" of various POV statements on this controversial issue. These lines could change in any way, and only represent one of many possible general structures. Of course there could be infinite amount of substructure representing the many obvious variations to these particular "camps" and so on. Each such statement would be an wiki developed encyclopedic summary of the beliefs of the people in a particular POV "camp" on this topic. It would all be developed collaboratively, and as new people joined various camps, they could bring new information, evidence, reasoning and so on - so that the state of the art of all POV on this topic could be represented. If people's POV was already represented by an existing "camp" they could join that camp, or a more precise sub camp, and help that POV along in its development. In this way we could see precisely who believed in which POV and how all of our beliefs grow and progress. Eventually I hope to have a "canonization" process which will allow people to sort and filter this kind of structure so people can have a tool to help them select the kind of people they most respect and trust, and see which POV is most valid and currently most accepted by the people they choose to trust the most. You talk about a religion. But of course for any religion, there must also be recognized "doctrine", and for some there must even be very strong "dogma". I am proposing that such a POV Wiki, could be the way that any such religion produce and determine what its doctrine and/or dogma is. Most of us might accept that the most "accepted" camp is the very strong and hopeful "dogma" that is currently guiding us in life. And most of us could also accept that, in a weak and humble way, we might discover that there is a better way to what it is we really hope for and so on. So, does anyone else think such a POV wiki would help with the development and expression of these kinds of beliefs like I do and help us push forward a much broader transhumanist movement? I'd sure like to have a more formal way to add my "amen" in agreement to what many of you are saying about what might be possible. Brent Allsop -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 4:54 PM To: ben at goertzel.org; ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote: > An implication would be that essentially full information about Sasha > Chislenko is contained in the universe, encoded in the > perturbation-patterns of various particles that are now distributed > all over the place. > > A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be > required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it, > but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the > decoherence interpretation are correct. > Regardless of the amount of computational and physical resources available there is no way to build a Sasha-bit detector with which to sort all this information without already having most of the Sasha relevant information. - samantha _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007 2:50 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007 2:50 PM From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 05:56:09 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 06:56:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520701022156p351ee1fg1da5ecb7d04afac2@mail.gmail.com> Samantha, if I could answer the first question I would start Resurrection Inc.! Of course you mean in principle, and not in detail. I do not have, of course, the foggiest idea. A fictional technique that might work if its assumptions are correct has been described by Sir A. Clarke and Stephen Baxter in "The Light of Other Days" (links in http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/engineering_transcendence/) and is a way to retrieve very high resolution information from the past without time travel. Ben's technique based on everything being entangled with almost everything else might also work, when we have the necessary tech. As you say, the MWI avoids logical paradoxes by "permitting" only time travel to "parallel" branches of the multiverse. But since these can be arbitrarily close to ours (as far as the popular terminology based on parallel universes makes sense, which I doubt), the copy could be close enough to the original to be acceptable as a copy in the identity sense. The motivation argument. Suppose we had this technology now. We would certainly use it to resurrect, say, Albert Einstein. But then *he* would do his best to resurrect his family and friends. And then *they* would do their best... G. On 1/3/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > Now this is a really interesting new thread for 2007! > > Of course I agree with Samantha that resurrecting the dead is not > > doable with any of the technologies we are even remotely able to > > imagine at this moment. The vast majority of the information is > > indeed, according to our current knowledge of physics, gone. But > > "there are more things in heaven and earth...". > > Regaining the information would not require time travel, but only the > > ability to retrieve information from the past, which is not the same > > thing. Information transfer from the past to the future does not > > create logical paradoxes. > > How exactly would you retrieve this rather dense amount of information > from the past without going back to when it was still coherently > available? > > > And come to that, full time travel itself does not create logical > > paradoxes in the MWI. > > This may not help you. By MWI as I understand it your time travel > would branch the universe or some subset thereof so you could not > bring information back to the same branch you started from. > > > > If something is not against the fundamental laws of physics, sooner or > > later engineers will find a way to do it. So, having never met Sasha, > > I look forward to meeting him in a few thousands of years. > > Even granting that we do not yet know the truly fundamental laws of > physics it is not certain that engineers will find a way to do all > things that are possible to the degree of actually making doing them > practical or the results of doing them sufficiently good. Not all > things that can be done are worth the expense needed to do them or are > seen as good or advantageous to do. But that is another subject in > this area. > > > > - samantha > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jan 3 07:47:20 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:47:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:53:32PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be > > required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it, > > but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the > > decoherence interpretation are correct. > > > > Regardless of the amount of computational and physical resources > available there is no way to build a Sasha-bit detector with which to > sort all this information without already having most of the Sasha > relevant information. Physical systems can and do erase information. Whether such locally lost information is still contained in the universe is moot if you can't read it -- you certainly can't catch Sasha's light cone after the fact. "Physics of Immortality" gives a very special case where this would be possible at the end of time and space, but then, "Physics of Immortality" has been falsified. Your best chances to survive would seem 1) not dying 2) cryonics in that order. Unfortunately, none of these are an option for Sasha. His information is lost forever. -- 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 pgptag at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 08:05:15 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:05:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com> <20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520701030005m2bbe3939qea541c7d1b4f2857@mail.gmail.com> Eugen, I would say that *the particular mechanism" proposed by Tipler and based on a future big crunch has been falsified *on the basis of the currently available cosmological evidence*. Not the core concept itself. I can relate to Kurzweil's "if the universe is open or closed will be for us to decide when the time is right". I am the first to admit that this is idle speculation in absence of any hard fact or plausible theory, but sometimes also idle speculations can advance science in the sense of steering one's toughts on a certain path. Provided, of course, that one does not take speculations as facts. So I prefer remaining agnostic on this point and think "well, maybe". G. On 1/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:53:32PM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > > A rather large amount of physical and computational effort would be > > > required to gather this information and reconstitute Sasha from it, > > > but "in principle" it should be possible if quantum theory and the > > > decoherence interpretation are correct. > > > > > > > Regardless of the amount of computational and physical resources > > available there is no way to build a Sasha-bit detector with which to > > sort all this information without already having most of the Sasha > > relevant information. > > Physical systems can and do erase information. Whether such locally > lost information is still contained in the universe is moot if you > can't read it -- you certainly can't catch Sasha's light cone after > the fact. "Physics of Immortality" gives a very special case where > this would be possible at the end of time and space, but then, > "Physics of Immortality" has been falsified. > > Your best chances to survive would seem 1) not dying 2) cryonics > in that order. Unfortunately, none of these are an option for Sasha. > His information is lost forever. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jan 3 08:50:11 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:50:11 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701030005m2bbe3939qea541c7d1b4f2857@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com> <20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org> <470a3c520701030005m2bbe3939qea541c7d1b4f2857@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070103085011.GX6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 09:05:15AM +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Eugen, I would say that *the particular mechanism" proposed by Tipler > and based on a future big crunch has been falsified *on the basis of > the currently available cosmological evidence*. Not the core concept Tipler's was a tenuous construction already, since postulating an ethics forecast of powers. There his eagerness to believe in a Deity was especially apparent, and ruined the entire book by way of fact confabulation. But if you take away his predictions about retrocausality of the Omega boundary condition and nothing remains of the book's residual points. And that's a good thing, because he built it that way. (Unless, of course, you have an alternative theory of similiar predictive power and falsifyability as Tipler's). > itself. > I can relate to Kurzweil's "if the universe is open or closed will be > for us to decide when the time is right". I can't. Kurzweil is giving futurists a bad name in scientific circles. His numbers are so doctored, they're not even wrong. From what we currently know, our style is severely cramped by that dark energy thing, which will make most of the even visible universe inaccessible by way of runaway inflation. Which, of course, is our current knowledge. Next week, or next decade I'll be quite thrilled to switch to a different tune. But that time is not now. Anyone who's willing to firmly claim otherwise is operating outside of the realm of science. > I am the first to admit that this is idle speculation in absence of > any hard fact or plausible theory, but sometimes also idle > speculations can advance science in the sense of steering one's > toughts on a certain path. Provided, of course, that one does not take > speculations as facts. > So I prefer remaining agnostic on this point and think "well, maybe". I don't disagree with this at all. But I'm not willing to listen to the "you might be immortal already, so you don't have to do anything, halleluja" crowd, which don't really need any encouragement. Which is why Sasha is dead, until proven otherwise. Which is why people should look into life extension first, and cryonics second. These are hard choices which are inconvenient (CR, lifestyle changes) and cost money (cryonics). Here Kurzweil at least walks the walk, and not just talks the talk. -- 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 pgptag at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 09:28:09 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:28:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] =?windows-1252?q?My_reply_to_WJ_Smith=92s_=93Give_?= =?windows-1252?q?Me_That_New_Transhumanist_Religion=94?= Message-ID: <470a3c520701030128s794bc95gecf3e29145e2932d@mail.gmail.com> I had the honor to be quoted by Wesley J. Smith in a blog post titled "Give Me That New Transhumanist Religion", where he comments my "Considerations on the development of the transhumanist movement ". This is only fair, as I quoted him. However, he tries using my post in support of his view of transhumanism as "a branch of scientism, that is, a quasi religion that seeks to use science in ways for which the great method is not meant". So I left the comment below on his blog. Dear Wesley, I wish to thank you for quoting me, but also wish to reply to your comments which may give, I fear, a distorted view of what I try to say. I have the highest respect for religion as search for meaning and wish to live a "good" life. At the same time, and based not only on my scientific training but also on my common sense, I am just unable to *believe* in any religion. I think, as you quote, that the succes of religions is due to the fact that they offer an answer to the nightmare of death. For previous generations, death was just something you cannot escape, so it is not surprising that so many persons have accepted supernatural answers in absence of scientific ones. But today we are beginning to see how science and technology may be able, someday and perhaps soon, to defeat death. I prefer this practical engineering approach to blind belief in something that cannot be proven. Of course, for most people, the scientific possibility of engineering immortality for future generation is not enough. I am one of these people. Many of my loved ones are dead and I wish to think that, perhaps, I will see them again. This is just human. But I cannot blind my eyes to the fact that, according to the scientific worldview to which I subscribe, they are just gone. Gone forever? Perhaps. And perhaps future science and technology may find a way to bring them back. I do not *believe* this: I do not believe in anything that I cannot prove. But I allow myself to contemplate this possibility because it is not, in my opinion, incompatible with the scientific worldview. This is what I mean by offering hope to those who, like me, are unable to find hope in religion. It is, I think, unfair to quote "[The] Raelian message is very similar to the transhumanist one" without the rest of my sentence: "with an extra layer of UFO nonsense". Indeed, I think the Raelian message has the same weakness of religion: it requires blind faith in things that cannot be proven. I prefer, on the contrary, to believe in ourselves and in our capability to improve our own condition. On the basis of our current understanding of reality, I am confident that someday we will achieve immortality through engineering. And later, perhaps, we will be able to do things even more amazing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 09:31:41 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:31:41 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <20070103085011.GX6974@leitl.org> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701010259h527273e5qb4cc36dce38c96a6@mail.gmail.com> <638d4e150701011403h43984b86tb46d2f34ec35313e@mail.gmail.com> <20070103074720.GO6974@leitl.org> <470a3c520701030005m2bbe3939qea541c7d1b4f2857@mail.gmail.com> <20070103085011.GX6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <470a3c520701030131yfc1d64r2d6aaafa18242434@mail.gmail.com> I'm also not willing to listen to the "you might be immortal already, so you don't have to do anything, halleluja" crowd. That is why I am signed up with the Cryonics Institute. Even if I firmly believed that I might be immortal already, I would not want to miss the fun of the next few centuries. G. On 1/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I am the first to admit that this is idle speculation in absence of > > any hard fact or plausible theory, but sometimes also idle > > speculations can advance science in the sense of steering one's > > toughts on a certain path. Provided, of course, that one does not take > > speculations as facts. > > So I prefer remaining agnostic on this point and think "well, maybe". > > I don't disagree with this at all. But I'm not willing to listen to > the "you might be immortal already, so you don't have to do anything, > halleluja" crowd, which don't really need any encouragement. > > Which is why Sasha is dead, until proven otherwise. Which is why > people should look into life extension first, and cryonics second. > These are hard choices which are inconvenient (CR, lifestyle changes) > and cost money (cryonics). Here Kurzweil at least walks the walk, > and not just talks the talk. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org From lucioc at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 12:15:46 2007 From: lucioc at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FAcio_de_Souza_Coelho?=) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:15:46 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701022156p351ee1fg1da5ecb7d04afac2@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520701010203i1cdb9db1x1fef2c0d8f114a92@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520701022156p351ee1fg1da5ecb7d04afac2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/3/07, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Samantha, if I could answer the first question I would start Resurrection Inc.! > Of course you mean in principle, and not in detail. I do not have, of > course, the foggiest idea. A fictional technique that might work if > its assumptions are correct has been described by Sir A. Clarke and > Stephen Baxter in "The Light of Other Days" (links in > http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/engineering_transcendence/) and > is a way to retrieve very high resolution information from the past > without time travel. (...) The same idea appears in another science fiction story that I read many years ago were the crew of a Superluminal ship studies the evolution of a supernova "backwards" simply travelling to regions of space were the image of the star as it was before exploding was still visible. Of course, as far as I understand Relativity, Superluminal travel apparently *has to* imply the possibility of travelling back in time. (And often other oddities like violations of the Conservation Laws.) And that apparently includes wormholes like those used in "Light of Other Days". Though the subject is still controversial... In particular, I have seen proponents of Superluminal stuff saying that violations of causality and conservation appear only if we consider as true the basic principle of Relativity that the speed of light is the maximum speed for information exchange in the Universe. But from the moment that we find something that allows information exchange at speeds >>c - ie, Superluminal phenomena - then that principle is obviously not valid anymore, and causality and conservation have to be redefined under the new framework of speeds/phenomena. From benboc at lineone.net Wed Jan 3 19:32:38 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:32:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> Surely, if this sort of resurrection is ever possible, it would result not in just one individual, but a whole range of them? (probably a huge number of them). Of course, we can leave it as an exercise for those given to perpetual pointless pondering to determine which one is the 'real' Sasha :> Eugen said: "people should look into life extension first, and cryonics second". I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading. I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others? ben zaiboc From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jan 3 20:17:13 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:17:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> References: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> Message-ID: <20070103201713.GK6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 07:32:38PM +0000, ben wrote: > Surely, if this sort of resurrection is ever possible, it would result > not in just one individual, but a whole range of them? (probably a huge > number of them). Yes -- if it was possible. Giving effectively infinite resources. Not in this universe. > Of course, we can leave it as an exercise for those given to perpetual > pointless pondering to determine which one is the 'real' Sasha :> If you can't even tell whether you succeeded, you clearly haven't. But of course good enough is good enough for external observers, who're already content with the rough person region. > Eugen said: "people should look into life extension first, and cryonics > second". > > I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume You die right now -- what are your other options? (Nevermind the handicap of starting with a day's or two worth of normothermic ischemia). > these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as > long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved If you keep going on in your present form your options are only getting more, not less. So it's a really good idea to keep ticking on. > in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading. If you're no longer capable of going on, your only option is preserving as much as possible. Which means cryopreservation. > I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others? You don't have to like it for it to be true. -- 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 Wed Jan 3 21:22:47 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:22:47 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <20070103201713.GK6974@leitl.org> References: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> <20070103201713.GK6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 1/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 07:32:38PM +0000, benboc wrote: > > > Surely, if this sort of resurrection is ever possible, it would result > > not in just one individual, but a whole range of them? (probably a huge > > number of them). > > Yes -- if it was possible. Giving effectively infinite resources. > Not in this universe. > There is a quote usually attributed to Albert Einstein: "The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." A version of this is attributed to lecturer Dharma Kumar at Cambridge University, England : "Time is a device to prevent everything happening at once; space is a device to prevent it all happening in Cambridge." Abolishing time and space could make for a really bad hair day. BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jan 3 21:20:30 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:20:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:32 PM 1/3/2007 +0000, ben zaiboc wrote: snip >I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume >these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as >long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved >in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading. > >I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others? Short of nanotech/uploading (which we don't have yet) no. These are definitely not mutually exclusive choices. Everyone I know in cryonics is also interested in life extension and anyone who has done suspensions (worked on 18 myself) will tell you that being suspended sucks. It just sucks less than the alternative. Only a few piped up that they were signed up. Are there any here who are not? Keith Henson From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 01:28:22 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:28:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?. In-Reply-To: <01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:33:12 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > If Copenhagen is right then something is frequent because it is probable. I might agree with that. Let's see if we might agree for the same reason: I think that to say as you do that "something is frequent because it is probable" is to say that the probability of an outcome is a property of the object itself (e.g., a property of a die, as a physical disposition of the die before it is rolled) or (alternatively and perhaps more accurately) that the probability is a property of the entire experimental arrangement (e.g., a property of a die rolling experiment, which includes not only the physics of the die but also the physics of the surface on which it is thrown, the physics of the air turbulence, and the physics of anything else in the universe that affects the outcome). Is that more or less what you mean? This is propensity theory, and I think it's no coincidence that the language about "property of the entire experimental arrangement" sounds similar to Bohr's. -gts From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 02:31:01 2007 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:31:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism in Korea and Japan Message-ID: <34084.41229.qm@web32807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear transhumanist friends, Just to start a great new year, the "Chosun Ilbo" ("Korean Daily", the largest newspaper in Korea, with a circulation of 2.5 million copies, much more than The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal) has published an interview about transhumanism, which has a very nice drawing depicting the continuous evolution of humankind, from humans to cyborgs to posthumans (angels and/or devils?:-) and can be seen here: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/01/01/2007010100060.html The interview appeared on a front page, full page format, on January 1, 2007. The Korean reporter who interviewed me came specially all the way to Caracas, Venezuela, and this shows how interested they are about such issues in Korea. If you don't understand Korean, you can try a free Internet on-line translator like Altavista Babelfish, even if the translations are still not too good (for example, my last name gets translated as "grand nose"... as opposed to "big brain":-) Hopefully, soon, once we are posthumans, we will not need external translators. In the meantime, we will need some other enhancements... And now from Korea to Japan. A few days ago, another newsreporter from the Japanese "Mainichi Shimbun" (one of the largest newspapers in the world, with a daily circulation of 4 million copies in the morning and 2 million copies in the evening) has interviewed me and I will keep you posted once it appears. Also, since I am moving to Japan next Summer in order to work in the most prestigious development center in Asia, there will be plenty of other opportunities for more interviews and articles. If transhumanism is really going to move into the mainstream, we have to be more mainstream and leave behind the freaky and fringe environments. After publishing a book about transhumanism in Korean last year, I will be now targeting the Japanese and Chinese markets, so, If you have any good ideas about them please write to me in private: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com. I will be very happy and thankful for any feedback:-) Once again, have a very happy 2007, 2070, 2700, 7200... Transhumanisticaly yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at comcast.net Thu Jan 4 02:47:07 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 19:47:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200701040303.l0433XKm029801@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I am embarrassed and troubled to say I am not yet signed up. It is definitely a real goal of mine, but primarily for family reasons I haven't yet. I just wish it was possible to sign up my entire family. But of course they all seem very hostile to the idea. If canonizer.com takes off and makes some money, that would be my first priority - financing the preservation of my entire family. Especially my and my wife's parents who are really getting up there in age. That would just tear me apart to not make it in time, or if I did have the money to offer them straight out for free - have them completely turn any such offer down. Brent Allsop -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 2:21 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! At 07:32 PM 1/3/2007 +0000, ben zaiboc wrote: snip >I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume >these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as >long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved >in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading. > >I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others? Short of nanotech/uploading (which we don't have yet) no. These are definitely not mutually exclusive choices. Everyone I know in cryonics is also interested in life extension and anyone who has done suspensions (worked on 18 myself) will tell you that being suspended sucks. It just sucks less than the alternative. Only a few piped up that they were signed up. Are there any here who are not? Keith Henson _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007 2:58 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 1/2/2007 2:58 PM From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 4 03:52:00 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 19:52:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200701040406.l0446MeE013334@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Only a few piped up that they were signed up. Are there any here who are > not? > > Keith Henson I. spike From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jan 4 07:54:52 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:54:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070103160910.029ee870@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070104075452.GQ6974@leitl.org> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 04:20:30PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Only a few piped up that they were signed up. Are there any here who are not? I'm not -- no local presence. I'm involved in a local cryonics group, however. -- 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 Thu Jan 4 10:46:15 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:46:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is Many Worlds testable? References: <874890.26758.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com><003101c72cb9$1f2922f0$c5911f97@nomedxgm1aalex><01a601c72def$335ac990$d20a4e0c@MyComputer><002001c72eae$b8d19a80$02941f97@nomedxgm1aalex> <004e01c72ebd$f310a740$cc044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <000201c72fed$90dff720$adbd1f97@nomedxgm1aalex> >> it seems to me that MWI (not to mention Copenhagen!) >> does not tell us what happens between times t1 and t2 John: > Please name the observation you have recorded during > that interval that Copenhagen can explain but > Many Worlds cannot. Copenhagen used to explain it by means of an intelligent act of non reversible observation. In "Physics and Philosophy" (Harper and Row, 1958, New York) Heisenberg writes "The observation itself changes the probability function discontinuously; it selects of all possible events the actual one that has taken place [...]. The discontinuous change in the probability function, however, takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change of our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function." So, in the example under discussion an observer may collapse the superposition at time 2, observing and recording the outcome. It seems to me that an observer may also collapse the superposition at time t1, if, at that time. he becomes aware of the fact that the alpha particle did not hit the inner scintillating surface. Note that in the latter case there is no real act of non reversible registration, since there is no measurement at all, and there is just a change in the knowledge of the observer (at time t1). Note also that Born wrote: "how could we rely on probability predictions if by this notion we do not refer to something real and objective?". This is important since Copenhagen, as we saw above, is inclined to mix the reduction of the probability packet, the (subjective?) change of knowledge (Heisenberg), the consciousness (von Neumann), and the reduction of the probability packet. The confusion becomes even greater when famous physicists try to introduce subjective probabilities in the Copenhagen arena! http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608190 As for the MWI I suspect there is also some huge confusion (and not just in myself, but in general). Because the aim of the MWI (as I understand it) is/was to explain physical events at a quantum level. In other words its aim is/was to avoid the 'black box' explanation given by Copenhagen, that is to say an explanation (sort of) that is completely _consistent_ at the classical level (observers, measurements, non reversible recording), but which does not say what is happening at the quantum level. I'll try to re-think that infamous example (ie using the probability calculus of the consistent histories, the Heisenberg picture and not the Schroedinger picture, etc.) to see if MWI is stronger and more consistent than Copenhagen. But I do not have time at the moment. >> Another problem I have is the one-slit diffraction > (different from the two-slit interference) > Things are indeed a bit more complex when dealing with diffraction rather > that interference, and if Copenhagen can explain what is going on more > clearly than Many Worlds then I have lost the argument. Almost every one has lost his arguments: Einstein, Bohr, Schroedinger, de Broglie, von Neumann, even John Bell. So, in that case, you would be in a good company! (The MWI explanation of the one-slit diffraction should to be a complex one, but I did not read anything about it.) > Best regards. And I want you to know I'm really enjoying this debate; > regardless if I end up winning or losing I want you to know I think you > are a fine fellow. I think all extropes are fine fellows. s. From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Thu Jan 4 11:52:41 2007 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 06:52:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> References: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> Message-ID: <459CEA89.80302@goldenfuture.net> ben wrote: >Eugen said: "people should look into life extension first, and cryonics >second". > >I'm wondering - are there any other options? Everyone seems to assume >these two are the only ones: Either keep going in your present form as >long as possible, using drugs, CR, etc., or dying and getting preserved >in some useful way in the hope of future reconstruction/uploading. > >I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any others? > >ben zaiboc > I don't see the two as mutually exclusive at all. In fact, I see cryonics only as a last resort. If my efforts-- such as they are-- at life extension to keep myself going until I can catch up to the technological LE curve are not successful, at least cryonics is a better choice than the alternative, which is complete material dissolution by being buried or immolated after death. A long shot is better than no shot at all. And yes, I'm signed up with Alcor. It really isn't all that expensive, if you go with the life insurance option to pay for the preservation. Only amounts to a few tens of dollars a month. Other choices? You could build yourself a spaceship and start traveling in a long elipse at relativistic speeds, arriving back to Earth in the (relative) future. It does seem a tad more expensive than cryonics, but certainly a surer way of making it to the future (and perhaps avoiding a "hard takeoff" singularity into the bargain!). Joseph http://transhumanist.blogspot.com From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jan 4 13:00:48 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:00:48 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <459CEA89.80302@goldenfuture.net> References: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> <459CEA89.80302@goldenfuture.net> Message-ID: <20070104130048.GA6974@leitl.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 06:52:41AM -0500, Joseph Bloch wrote: > Other choices? You could build yourself a spaceship and start traveling > in a long elipse at relativistic speeds, arriving back to Earth in the Do you expect manned relativistic flight in the next 30-40 years? Using which propulsion techniques? What about radiation background? (Interstellar hydrogen is pretty bright at relativistic speeds). Machines have none of these issues. > (relative) future. It does seem a tad more expensive than cryonics, but > certainly a surer way of making it to the future (and perhaps avoiding a > "hard takeoff" singularity into the bargain!). You can't avoid it. You will run smack into its expansion wavefront when you head back. (You can't actually even escape it, long-term, because it can accelerate way faster than you and reach higher velocities than you, and it will colonize systems ahead of you as it overtakes you). Perhaps not really an option, even for the future. -- 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 lucioc at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 13:25:56 2007 From: lucioc at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FAcio_de_Souza_Coelho?=) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:25:56 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <20070104130048.GA6974@leitl.org> References: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> <459CEA89.80302@goldenfuture.net> <20070104130048.GA6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 1/4/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: (...) > Do you expect manned relativistic flight in the next 30-40 years? > Using which propulsion techniques? What about radiation background? > (Interstellar hydrogen is pretty bright at relativistic speeds). > Machines have none of these issues. (...) I am also rather skeptic about relativistic flight in the foreseeable future. In 30-40 years with a lot of lucky maybe we will have a solar sail or Orion or fission-fragment propulsion craft flying at less than 1% of lightspeed. (Well... Although there maybe beam-probes going much faster than that. Again with a lot of lucky.) But if we are talking about exotic, far-future relativistic stasis, one can also produce a small black hole somewhere in the Solar System skirts - perhaps collapsing a Kuipier belt object or whatever - and then enter a close orbit around the thing... From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jan 4 14:01:20 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:01:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: References: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> <459CEA89.80302@goldenfuture.net> <20070104130048.GA6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070104140120.GE6974@leitl.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 11:25:56AM -0200, L?cio de Souza Coelho wrote: > I am also rather skeptic about relativistic flight in the foreseeable > future. In 30-40 years with a lot of lucky maybe we will have a solar > sail or Orion or fission-fragment propulsion craft flying at less than > 1% of lightspeed. (Well... Although there maybe beam-probes going much > faster than that. Again with a lot of lucky.) You could arguably build a small dumb >>0.9 c beam probe in a 30-40 years time frame, provided people would make it a priority (we almost certainly won't). It wouldn't be able to brake well, obviously. > But if we are talking about exotic, far-future relativistic stasis, > one can also produce a small black hole somewhere in the Solar System A small one wouldn't work. There's not enough mass in a solar system to have a singularity with gravity gradient a human body could tolerate. Also, I would want to know how you made it collapse in the first place. Also, you need to have really clean space in order to avoid having an uncomfortably bright accretion disk. Also, I'm not sure hovering just above event horizon would be buying you all that much time, and I would sure like to see how descending up and down that potential hole is energetically different from a real relativistic trip. There don't seem to be too many free lunches, unfortunately. What's wrong with human cryopreservation? Or CR, for that matter? Perhaps not very glamorous, but this stuff has been working for a long while now, and gets only better. > skirts - perhaps collapsing a Kuipier belt object or whatever - and > then enter a close orbit around the thing... -- 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 lucioc at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 14:41:55 2007 From: lucioc at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FAcio_de_Souza_Coelho?=) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:41:55 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <20070104140120.GE6974@leitl.org> References: <459C04D6.5080305@lineone.net> <459CEA89.80302@goldenfuture.net> <20070104130048.GA6974@leitl.org> <20070104140120.GE6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 1/4/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: (...) > A small one wouldn't work. There's not enough mass in a solar system > to have a singularity with gravity gradient a human body could tolerate. Shame on me, you are right! Supposing a black hole 1/1000 of Earth mass, the relativistic traveler would have to follow an orbit with radius in the order of micrometers around the thing. Ridiculously unsuited for a human-sized object. Next time I promise I will make my back-of-the-envelope calculations before suggesting outlandish scifi stuff. :) From bret at bonfireproductions.com Thu Jan 4 16:16:12 2007 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:16:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] =?windows-1252?q?My_reply_to_WJ_Smith=92s_=93Give_?= =?windows-1252?q?Me_That_New_Transhumanist_Religion=94?= In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701030128s794bc95gecf3e29145e2932d@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520701030128s794bc95gecf3e29145e2932d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <361D54E5-0E06-4A51-B2EE-CAF906BD2832@bonfireproductions.com> Gui1li0, This is wonderfully written. Thank you for "stepping up to the plate" on this. It's hard when you have to go out of your way, when you've taken the time to be concise, only to have someone turn around and mangle what you've said. I did try to leave a positive remark on the blog, but he's got auth turned on, of course. Why people continue to need to glom religion onto everything is very disturbing. They can't accept that things can exist without it, so they apply it with a wide brush. Again, many thanks! Bret K. On Jan 3, 2007, at 4:28 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I had the honor to be quoted by Wesley J. Smith in a blog post > titled "Give Me That New Transhumanist Religion ", where he > comments my "Considerations on the development of the transhumanist > movement ". This is only fair, as I quoted him. However, he tries > using my post in support of his view of transhumanism as "a branch > of scientism, that is, a quasi religion that seeks to use science > in ways for which the great method is not meant". So I left the > comment below on his blog. > > Dear Wesley, > > I wish to thank you for quoting me, but also wish to reply to your > comments which may give, I fear, a distorted view of what I try to > say. > > I have the highest respect for religion as search for meaning and > wish to live a "good" life. > > At the same time, and based not only on my scientific training but > also on my common sense, I am just unable to *believe* in any > religion. > > I think, as you quote, that the succes of religions is due to the > fact that they offer an answer to the nightmare of death. > > For previous generations, death was just something you cannot > escape, so it is not surprising that so many persons have accepted > supernatural answers in absence of scientific ones. > > But today we are beginning to see how science and technology may be > able, someday and perhaps soon, to defeat death. I prefer this > practical engineering approach to blind belief in something that > cannot be proven. > > Of course, for most people, the scientific possibility of > engineering immortality for future generation is not enough. I am > one of these people. Many of my loved ones are dead and I wish to > think that, perhaps, I will see them again. > > This is just human. But I cannot blind my eyes to the fact that, > according to the scientific worldview to which I subscribe, they > are just gone. > > Gone forever? Perhaps. And perhaps future science and technology > may find a way to bring them back. I do not *believe* this: I do > not believe in anything that I cannot prove. But I allow myself to > contemplate this possibility because it is not, in my opinion, > incompatible with the scientific worldview. > > This is what I mean by offering hope to those who, like me, are > unable to find hope in religion. > > It is, I think, unfair to quote "[The] Raelian message is very > similar to the transhumanist one" without the rest of my sentence: > "with an extra layer of UFO nonsense". Indeed, I think the Raelian > message has the same weakness of religion: it requires blind faith > in things that cannot be proven. > > I prefer, on the contrary, to believe in ourselves and in our > capability to improve our own condition. On the basis of our > current understanding of reality, I am confident that someday we > will achieve immortality through engineering. And later, perhaps, > we will be able to do things even more amazing. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jonkc at att.net Thu Jan 4 18:38:32 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:38:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?. References: <01f101c72dfd$3f0ad9c0$d20a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <020201c7302f$91a711b0$440d4e0c@MyComputer> "gts" > something is frequent because it is probable" is to say that the > probability of an outcome is a property of the object itself If Copenhagen is right then I think that must be true; but if it is true then the Monty Hall problem escalates from an amusing little puzzle into a full blown logical paradox. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Jan 4 21:25:53 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:25:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] =?iso-8859-1?q?My_reply_to_WJ_Smith=92s_=93Give__M?= =?iso-8859-1?q?e_That_New_Transhumanist_Religion=94?= In-Reply-To: <361D54E5-0E06-4A51-B2EE-CAF906BD2832@bonfireproductions.co m> References: <470a3c520701030128s794bc95gecf3e29145e2932d@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520701030128s794bc95gecf3e29145e2932d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104162240.03c77250@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:16 AM 1/4/2007 -0500, Bret K. wrote: snip >Why people continue to need to glom religion onto everything is very >disturbing. They can't accept that things can exist without it, so they >apply it with a wide brush. I think it is even more disturbing if you figure out why people have religions at all. Religions have functions and one of them it to hype up the warriors before they go out to kill neighbors. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Jan 4 21:34:12 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:34:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting article follow up Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> "Johns Hopkins researchers have found that more effective than threats on billboards, warnings on products or lectures from a doctor are the development of new habits within social groups. Peer opinion leaders and group support, they believe, are among the most critical aids to change, whether you're aiming to lose weight, quit smoking or exercise. "'If you want to change and maintain behavior over time, you need people who are going to be supportive of those changes,'" If guilt trips won't do it, I wonder if we need a support group to help people make cryonics arrangements? :-) Keith From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Jan 4 23:39:25 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:39:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting article follow up In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <39114.72.236.103.54.1167953965.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > If guilt trips won't do it, I wonder if we need a support group to help > people make cryonics arrangements? :-) > Cryonics... they'd have to do more than preserve what's left of me... I'd need major rejuvenation. :( So I think I'll pass. Regards, MB From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Jan 4 23:37:41 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:37:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] More on how brains work (buying stuff) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104162240.03c77250@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <361D54E5-0E06-4A51-B2EE-CAF906BD2832@bonfireproductions.co m> <470a3c520701030128s794bc95gecf3e29145e2932d@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520701030128s794bc95gecf3e29145e2932d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104183636.0361e2d0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Brain Scans Predict When People Will Buy Products Science Daily - For the first time, researchers have used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine what parts of the brain are active when people consider whether to purchase a product and to predict whether or not they ultimately choose to buy the product. The study appears in the journal Neuron and was co-authored by scientists at Carnegie Mellon University, Stanford University and the MIT Sloan School of Management. This paper is the latest from the emerging field of neuroeconomics, which investigates the mental and neural processes that drive economic decision-making. The results could have a profound impact on economic theory, because the decision of whether to purchase a product is the most basic and pervasive economic behavior. Previous imaging studies have found that separate parts of the brain are activated when people are confronted with financial gains versus financial losses. The authors of this latest study believed that distinct brain regions would be activated when people were presented with products they wish to purchase (representing a potential gain) and when they were presented with those products' prices (representing a potential loss). The researchers wanted to see if they could then use this information to predict when a person would decide to buy a product, and when they would pass it up. Twenty-six adults participated in the study, in which they were given $20 to spend on a series of products that would be shipped to them. If they made no purchases, they would be able to keep the money. The products and their prices appeared on a computer screen that the participants viewed while lying in an fMRI scanner. The researchers found that when the participants were presented with the products, a subcortal brain region known as the nucleus accumbens that is associated with the anticipation of pleasure was activated. When the subjects were presented with prices that were excessive, two things happened: the brain region known as the insula was activated and a part of the brain associated with balancing gains versus losses -- the medial prefrontal cortex -- was deactivated. Furthermore, by studying which regions were activated, the authors were able to successfully predict whether the study participants would decide to purchase each item. Activations of the regions associated with product preference and with weighing gains and losses indicated that a person would decide to purchase a product. In contrast, when the region associated with excessive prices was activated participants chose not to buy a product. This study challenges the conventional economic account of consumer purchases, which views consumers as deciding between the immediate pleasure of making a purchase and the delayed pleasures of alternative things for which the same money could be used. The results of this paper support an alternative perspective that views consumers as trading off the immediate pleasure of making a purchase against an immediate pain: the pain of forking out the money for the item. The results can explain the growing tendency of consumers to overspend when purchasing items with credit cards instead of cash, because consumers do not immediately pay for items charged to credit cards and the "pain" of the potential loss is minimized. Economic policies designed to promote savings would thus need to take this into account. It also suggests that differences in how much people spend and save may be partly explained by differences in the degree to which they find spending money painful. The Neuron paper was authored by Scott Rick and George Loewenstein of the Department of Social and Decisions Sciences at Carnegie Mellon; Brian Knutson and G. Elliott Wimmer of the Department of Psychology at Stanford; and Drazen Prelec at MIT's Sloan School of Management. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Carnegie Mellon University. Source: Carnegie Mellon University http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070103201418.htm From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Jan 4 23:41:09 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:41:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting article (3) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104184103.03c78d78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Are You Really Ready To Clean Up Your Act? Maybe You Need to Understand Your Bad Habits By Anita Huslin Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 2, 2007; Page HE01 We're fat. We smoke. Drink too much. Don't exercise enough. And our stress levels are off the charts. We're killing ourselves, and we know it. And yet we carry on -- overeating, lighting up, slumping in front of the television and throwing back another beer -- inspiring some of the greatest thinkers in the worlds of genomics, neuroscience, biochemistry and evolutionary psychology to ponder the Big Mac of medical questions: Why is it so hard for people to change? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901722.html ***** Keith From brent.allsop at comcast.net Fri Jan 5 00:37:28 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (brent.allsop at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:37:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting article follow up Message-ID: <010520070037.8982.459D9DC8000D3C250000231622058891169F019C04040ED29B020A9D0D@comcast.net> Keith, > If guilt trips won't do it, I wonder if we need a support group to help > people make cryonics arrangements? :-) abso positive lutely! Once we reach the singularity, I bet there are going to be a lot of people that ?make it? only to be frustrated for an eternity, whishing they would have done more to help more of their loved ones make it too. So many Extropians just seem to think: ?screw them, if they aren?t as smart as I, they don?t deserve to make it.? Brent Allsop From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jan 5 02:26:54 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:26:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting article follow up In-Reply-To: <39114.72.236.103.54.1167953965.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104212330.03c611f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:39 PM 1/4/2007 -0500, MB wrote: >Cryonics... they'd have to do more than preserve what's left of me... I'd >need major >rejuvenation. :( So I think I'll pass. Ah ... Things have improved somewhat with vitrification, but no matter what is wrong with a person before they get frozen, fixing that is trivial considering the damage being suspended does. Jeeze, we have at least two in suspension with bullets through their brains. I hope you are not in that bad a shape. Keith From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Jan 5 01:54:39 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:54:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: "Parents Defend Decision to Keep Girl Small" Message-ID: <380-220071551543930@M2W018.mail2web.com> Sam Howe Verhovek of the LA Times covers a story about a young girl whose disabling disease cause her parents to intervene and stud her growth, "Parents defend decision to keep disabled girl small" (January 3, 2007) http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-stunt3jan03,0,4588681.story?coll=la- home-headlines Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 5 08:07:53 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 09:07:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting article follow up In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104212330.03c611f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070104212330.03c611f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070105080753.GS6974@leitl.org> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:26:54PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > Ah ... Things have improved somewhat with vitrification, but no matter what Things have improved *considerably* with vitrification. For those new to the topic, see http://www.21cm.com/articles/ > is wrong with a person before they get frozen, fixing that is trivial > considering the damage being suspended does. -- 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Fri Jan 5 08:55:49 2007 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 19:55:49 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes References: Message-ID: <006701c730a7$4c55c6b0$52e98f9b@homepc> happy new year to ya's (even you'se american ones who might not be so fully deserving of it) I know I don't write much but I read the digest and its good to see some of the ol' gang is still alive and kickin'. I miss some of the detail by just scanning the digest. Sasha is alive! for instance, as a header, promises some pretty good news, I never met Sasha but I like those who liked him, and he seemed to pass on under sad circumstances, anyways, as a slightly experienced reader of the list I do wonder if isn't a bit of Robert Bradbury over enthusiasm. Perhaps I'll check the archives when I have time. Good health to all. Especially Amara, Stu, Natasha, Eliezer, Hal, and ah heck to many others to mention but if you remember me I remember you. Been watchin that futures market stuff coming along nicely Robin. Brett From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Jan 5 12:30:34 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 07:30:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting article follow up In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104212330.03c611f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070104212330.03c611f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <39199.72.236.102.107.1168000234.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > Jeeze, we have at least two in suspension with bullets through their brains. > > I hope you are not in that bad a shape. > :))) No, just old and wearing out! And getting tired. Regards, MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Jan 5 12:46:03 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 07:46:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: "Parents Defend Decision to Keep Girl Small" In-Reply-To: <380-220071551543930@M2W018.mail2web.com> References: <380-220071551543930@M2W018.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <39240.72.236.102.107.1168001163.squirrel@main.nc.us> > Sam Howe Verhovek of the LA Times covers a story about a young girl whose > disabling disease cause her parents to intervene and stud her growth, > "Parents defend decision to keep disabled girl small" (January 3, 2007) > > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-stunt3jan03,0,4588681.story?coll=la- > home-headlines > People are faced with terrible situations all the time. Growth Attenuation seems like a reasonable option in such a case. One of my friends was a nurse, but she discovered after a dozen or so years that she was beginning to have back and shoulder and wrist troubles - connected with lifting, turning, and otherwise dealing with heavy patients. She now does library work instead. These parents are doing the best they can. They need support, is my view. I very much appreciated the father's closing statement about "letting nature take its course". Regards, MB From moses2k at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 15:11:35 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 09:11:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 40, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3aff9e290701050711n34e641d2iad9840aed94ece3d@mail.gmail.com> A recent comment by Eli on Overcoming Bias prompted me to give a serious look at cryonics, which, for whatever reasons, I'd dismissed before. I agree with the rationale and am nearly ready to sign. I've done a good bit of research, but there's at least one thing I'm unclear regarding. For those here who're signed, what factors contributed to choosing one or the other of the main providers? Proximity? Price? Perceived professionalism? Popularity? (I didn't start out intending an alliteration. :) ) Thanks in advance. Also, I think this is my first post to the list, so hello. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jan 5 16:32:40 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:32:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <006701c730a7$4c55c6b0$52e98f9b@homepc> References: <006701c730a7$4c55c6b0$52e98f9b@homepc> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070105103040.0452c410@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:55 AM 1/5/2007, Brett wrote: >happy new year to ya's (even you'se american ones who might not be so fully >deserving of it) > >I know I don't write much but I read the digest and its good to see some of >the ol' gang is still alive and kickin'. Better than ever! >I miss some of the detail by just scanning the digest. Sasha is alive! for >instance, as a header, promises some pretty good news, I never met Sasha but >I like those who liked him, and he seemed to pass on under sad >circumstances, anyways, as a slightly experienced reader of the list I do >wonder if isn't a bit of Robert Bradbury over enthusiasm. >Perhaps I'll check the archives when I have time. > >Good health to all. Especially Amara, Stu, Natasha, Eliezer, Hal, and ah >heck to many others to mention but if you remember me I remember you. And to you Brett. It is great to hear from you. >Been watchin that futures market stuff coming along nicely Robin. Do you urls re Robin's work that you want to share with us? 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 hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jan 5 15:22:00 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:22:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Interesting article follow up In-Reply-To: <39199.72.236.102.107.1168000234.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070104212330.03c611f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070104163115.03af9430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070104212330.03c611f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070105101519.03af9578@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:30 AM 1/5/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > > > Jeeze, we have at least two in suspension with bullets through their > brains. > > > > I hope you are not in that bad a shape. > > > >:))) No, just old and wearing out! And getting tired. The usual problem with cryonics and being old is paying for it since insurance is usually out or very expensive. Alcor will work with people and CI is less expensive. Know about wearing out though, was born in 1942. Having suspended a bunch of people, I am sure hoping I don't need it. Keith From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jan 5 16:42:36 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:42:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 40, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <3aff9e290701050711n34e641d2iad9840aed94ece3d@mail.gmail.co m> References: <3aff9e290701050711n34e641d2iad9840aed94ece3d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070105103312.0452c180@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:11 AM 1/5/2007, Chris wrote: >A recent comment by Eli on Overcoming Bias prompted me to give a serious >look at cryonics, which, for whatever reasons, I'd dismissed before. I >agree with the rationale and am nearly ready to sign. I've done a good >bit of research, but there's at least one thing I'm unclear >regarding. For those here who're signed, what factors contributed to >choosing one or the other of the main providers? >Proximity? > >Price? Perceived professionalism? Popularity? (I didn't start out > intending an alliteration. :) ) There are not a lot of choices, but here is a reference: http://www.cryonet.org/orgs.html Some have chosen Alcor Foundation. I am an Advisor to the Board for Alcor, so I can attest to Alcor's continue to move forward. Hopefully someone can tell you about the other cryonics organizations so you can have a balanced view. >Thanks in advance. > >Also, I think this is my first post to the list, so hello. :) Welcome to the list, 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 hibbert at mydruthers.com Fri Jan 5 18:41:11 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:41:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 40, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <3aff9e290701050711n34e641d2iad9840aed94ece3d@mail.gmail.com> References: <3aff9e290701050711n34e641d2iad9840aed94ece3d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <459E9BC7.1010300@mydruthers.com> > For those here who're signed, what factors contributed to choosing > one or the other of the main providers? Proximity? Price? > Perceived professionalism? Popularity? (I didn't start out intending > an alliteration. :) ) Alcor was the only provider that was actively discussed when I was signing up ('95-'97; I doubt very many people get through the whole process quickly unless they have a particular reason for urgency). I know quite a few people in the local cryonics community, so that seemed sufficient evidence that they were the majority provider. I haven't actively followed discussions in the community, so I don't know at what point other alternatives have also become well-known. Alcor has done a reasonable job of expanding coverage, maintaining contact, and updating technology, so I've seen no reason to reconsider. 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 Fri Jan 5 20:06:31 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:06:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Signing up for cryonics, was chat Digest, Vol 40, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <3aff9e290701050711n34e641d2iad9840aed94ece3d@mail.gmail.co m> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070105144923.03ca34f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:11 AM 1/5/2007 -0600, "Chris Petersen" wrote: >A recent comment by Eli on Overcoming Bias prompted me to give a serious >look at cryonics, which, for whatever reasons, I'd dismissed before. I dismissed it for about 20 years. Reading Eric Drexler's take on nanotechnology in draft convinced me it could work. I signed up 22 years ago. >I agree with the rationale and am nearly ready to sign. I've done a good >bit of research, but there's at least one thing I'm unclear >regarding. For those here who're signed, what factors contributed to >choosing one or the other of the main >providers? Proximity? Price? Perceived professionalism? Popularity? (I >didn't start out intending an alliteration. :) ) All of these are influential. Age is another factor. Alcor is clearly more professional than CI, but that comes at a price. Since most people use life insurance to pay for it, age and current health are big factors. Proximity is less of a factor if you live in a place with a local support team. Still, for the best quality suspension, I would make plans (in the event of a terminal illness) to move near your provider. >Thanks in advance. > >Also, I think this is my first post to the list, so hello. :) Hi back. Can you tell us a bit about your background? Keith Henson From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 21:24:37 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:24:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <006701c730a7$4c55c6b0$52e98f9b@homepc> References: <006701c730a7$4c55c6b0$52e98f9b@homepc> Message-ID: <62c14240701051324j396719fau6b0fca6878152b5c@mail.gmail.com> On 1/5/07, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > happy new year to ya's (even you'se american ones who might not be so > fully > deserving of it) > I would have let this go completely if I were actually offended by it, but I'm curious what makes you say something like that? Seriously, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just want to better understand your worldview. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Fri Jan 5 22:06:04 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 22:06:04 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <459ECBCC.4090207@lineone.net> Joseph Bloch wrote: > ben wrote: >> >> I don't think that's enough choices! Has anyone thought of any >> others? > > I don't see the two as mutually exclusive at all. In fact, I see > cryonics only as a last resort. Yes, i used a poor choice of words, saying 'choices'. 'Options' maybe would be better. I didn't mean to imply exclusive choices. What i'm getting at, though, is that there don't seem to be any other strategies on offer, or even proposed as theoretical possibilities, for extending life. > You could build yourself a spaceship... Hmm, yeah. I'm thinking, maybe something a little more ... achievable? Imagine you've done all you can to stay healthy and alive, and now you're declining fast, and the prospect of death or cryonics is all you can see. I'm thinking along the lines of some type of extreme life-support technology that you could use at this point. There are currently intensive-care techniques that can keep very sick people alive, so i'm musing that some kind of extension of this may be able to keep someone who's sickness is old age, alive? I say old age, but this applies to lots of conditions, from heart disease to cancer to diabetes with complications (but not to CNS problems, brain tunours, etc.). I suppose this would segue into full-on cyborg tech., but at the moment (or the near future) what might be possible along these lines? After all, what's important is the brain. Could we keep someone's brain alive and, ideally, active, using some kind of life-support technology? A kind of 'third-worst option'? Maybe you could keep the brain alive (and sane) for a number of years, until better options arrive, or until uploading is possible, or at the worst, when cryonics becomes necessary? Just musing here, of course, but i can't help thinking something like this should be possible. In (very) simple terms, you'd just need a reliable blood supply and some kind of neural interface technology. Or would the kind of technology required for this, imply life-extension capabilities anyway, rendering it unnecessary? Maybe i've been watching too many episodes of Futurama. ben zaiboc From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 22:29:20 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:29:20 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Sasha is alive! In-Reply-To: <459ECBCC.4090207@lineone.net> References: <459ECBCC.4090207@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 1/5/07, benboc wrote: > > I'm thinking, maybe something a little more ... achievable? > > Imagine you've done all you can to stay healthy and alive, and now > you're declining fast, and the prospect of death or cryonics is all you > can see. > > I'm thinking along the lines of some type of extreme life-support > technology that you could use at this point. There are currently > intensive-care techniques that can keep very sick people alive, so i'm > musing that some kind of extension of this may be able to keep someone > who's sickness is old age, alive? > I understand there is some research going into hibernation for humans. Mainly for long space trips. e.g. two years to Mars. But it could buy a few extra years for ageing humans, if it becomes feasible. BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 6 02:38:48 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:38:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: "Parents Defend Decision to Keep Girl Small" In-Reply-To: <39240.72.236.102.107.1168001163.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200701060250.l062oqfL022044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB ... > > One of my friends was a nurse, but she discovered after a dozen or so > years that she > was beginning to have back and shoulder and wrist troubles - connected > with lifting, > turning, and otherwise dealing with heavy patients. She now does library > work > instead... Regards, MB I dated a nurse in my misspent youth. I tagged along and noted that much of her work involved lifting and moving patients. Over the past 25 years, people in general have become much heavier I have heard, and OSHA standards have gotten stricter on maximum loads workers are allowed to hoist. Would not these two factors conspire to make the nurses job ever harder? spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Jan 6 03:45:26 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:45:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: "Parents Defend Decision to Keep Girl Small" In-Reply-To: <200701060250.l062oqfL022044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <39240.72.236.102.107.1168001163.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200701060250.l062oqfL022044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <39490.72.236.103.208.1168055126.squirrel@main.nc.us> Spike wrote: > > I dated a nurse in my misspent youth. I tagged along and noted that much of > her work involved lifting and moving patients. Over the past 25 years, > people in general have become much heavier I have heard, and OSHA standards > have gotten stricter on maximum loads workers are allowed to hoist. Would > not these two factors conspire to make the nurses job ever harder? > I'd think so. My former-nurse friend is not a large woman, but she is sturdy and strong. However, her body was not up to the task of caring for many patients day-in, day-out. There are also many retrictions on how one can restrain a patient - no tying them into wheelchairs and such. Of course this has a downside: the incapable patient may try to get up and go somewhere, fall, and break a hip - or actually get somewhere, maybe outside into traffic. Dilemmas abound. My son worked for a year as a caretaker in a home for the profoundly disabled, some of whom (many of whom?) were bedridden. I'll ask him what he thinks of this story. These parents have done, IMHO, the best they could for their child. It will help them in the care of the child, and after they are gone it will help other caretakers. This will all benefit the child in her day-to-day life. There is a special bond that can develop between a parent and a handicapped child. I find it can develop between a person and a handicapped pet as well, leading one to do things that one would not have expected, devoting great energy and effort without much thought of "this is too much". Regards, MB From pj at pj-manney.com Sat Jan 6 05:37:04 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:37:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Signaling and Social Markers Message-ID: <16820213.1337001168061823988.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >But when it comes to personal interactions, I feel STRONGLY that I must >present the "true Jef", and I resist biasing my word choices and style >of communication to match my target audience, be it family members or >friends. Even though I can clearly see that it impairs effective >communication, I feel strongly that I must be "real" and if I were to >bias my style and presentation that it would be manipulative and I >certainly wouldn't want people doing that when interacting with me. > >This has been a big roadblock for me in interacting with people I care >about personally. They know me as sincere, intelligent,...and difficult >to relate with. Being someone who talks often about the wisdom of >effective interaction, I see that I'm creating my own problem, but I >have not yet overcome the strong sense that if I were to adjust my >communication style and presentation when playing the role of the "real >Jef" then I would be acting falsely. > >So, maybe there's an analogy between the clothing style one presents and >the communication style one presents. For me they seem very different >in terms of values, but I can see that they each may be simply a layer >over the self. > >As Lizbeth left for work this morning she said "Maybe holding on to who >you are gets in the way of who you may become." Please forgive me for getting to this so late. I'm still wading through the deluge of communications from being in rural Wisconsin without Internet or cell service... It was a blessing and a curse. Like all technological ramifications! I've been reading a lot about empathy, as you know, Jef. And one of the primary forms of empathy we humans display is an unconscious mimicry and mirroring of speech patterns, facial expressions and body language. We do it without realizing and those who do it more are considered more empathetic and relatable compared to those who do it less or not at all, who are considered incommunicative or unempathetic. It's those pesky mirror neurons again! You did it consciously as a manager and it was very effective. But maybe the people closest to you need it, too. Because it's not about being inauthentic. It's about being relatable. Maybe what these people are seeing is you being you, as opposed to 'being them.' And they need to see more 'themselves' to understand you. As I've said many, many times before -- We may think we speak the same, literal language, but how we take that information in and what we do with it can be radically different. In this world, we've got be become multilingual to communicate, even with our own friends and family. You're not being false. You're reaching out. And don't think for one minute that I can be completely 'myself' with anyone, including family (although my husband gets the 100%, unpasturized, real 'me' -- he bought this cow so long ago, that I grew into all the wacky facets of my identity before his eyes...). None of us is so simplistically formed that anyone can take in all our contrary complexities without whiplash. (And yes, I can still give him whiplash! But I think he likes it... ;-) ) Think of it this way: the mirroring lessens their neck strain trying to keep up with you. And makes for smoother relationships. Hope all is well! PJ From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 06:10:53 2007 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:10:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge Question 2007 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <935164.3789.qm@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, There are some really wonderful ideas here, from some of the most brilliant thinkers and doers:-) Enjoy... "Sergio M.L. Tarrero" wrote: Friends, The 2007 Edge.org question is out. "What are you optimistic about?" Time to have some fun reading some of the responses! http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html If you don?t have much time... I?ve taken the time to look carefully at most entries and, in case this helps you, these are my recommendations, in order of appearance, page after page. I?ve placed asterisks next to my very favorite ones, and some initials to give guidance about themes on some of them. H+ = Transhumanism NBIC = NanoBioInfoCogno convergence T = Transparency E = Energy C = Climate M = Morality/Ethics/Religion ED = Education P = Physics 1: Dan Dennett* (M), Alun Anderson (E), Mark Hauser (M), Steven Pinker* (M) 2: Michael Shermer* (M), Gerald Holton* (NBIC), Andrew Brown* (M) 3: Haim Harari*, Carlo Rovelli, Juan Enr?quez 4: Peter Schwartz (H+), Jerry Adler 5: Rebecca Goldstein* (M, ED), Leo Chalupa (H+), Sam Harris* (M), Ray Kurzweil* (E, H+), Douglas Rushkoff 6: Lisa Randall, Freeman Dyson, Andrian Kreye, David Gelenter, James Geary (E), Kai Krause (very long, but OK) 7: George Church (H+), Chris Dibona (T), Max Tegmark* (H+) 8: Judith Rich Harris (E), Robert Shapiro (long, but interesting), Tor Norretranders (C), Adam Bly, Marco Iacoboni* (M) 9: Craig Venter, Rodney Brooks*, Anton Zeilinger, Diane Halpern* (M), Gloria Origgi 10: Paul Saffo, Dan Sperber, Gary Marcus (ED), Paul Davies 11: David Dalrymple* (ED), Gregory Benford* (C), Stephen Schneider (C), Karl Sabbagh, Chris Anderson, Nicholas Humphrey* 12: Richard Dawkins*, Jaron Lanier, Jason McCabe Calacanis, Andy Clark (H+) 13: Brian Eno*, Marcelo Gleiser (M), Alex Pentland, David Bodanis 14: Frank Wilczek (P), Leon Lederman* (ED), Jill Neimark (H+), Larry Sanger, Barry Smith 15: Martin Rees*, Vittorio Bo, Paul Steinhardt (P), Robert Sapolsky (M) 16: Oliver Morton (E), John McCarthy, Marvin Misky* (H+) Incidentally, as I?ve told some of you already, I came upon the idea Gregory Benford (page 11) and his colleagues are working on for manipulating global temperature independently about a year ago, after hearing what happened on the days following 9/11, when the temperature in the US raised due to the lack of planes in the sky. My idea had to do with using remotely controlled swarms of flying (or floating) micro or nano robots, more than just particles, to reflect sunlight when and where needed. I guess that?d be more expensive than Benford?s plan (though maybe not!) but much more versatile, controllable, and permanent of a solution. Enjoy. Sergio M.L. Tarrero Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: Sam Harris Fecha: 1 de enero de 2007 07:36:25 GMT+01:00 Para: sergiomartinez at mac.com Asunto: Edge Question 2007 Responder a: author at samharris.org Edge Question for 2007 Edge.org has posted its annual Question: What Are You Optimistic About? You can read Sam's answer (along with those of other Edge contibutors) here: Edge email: author at samharris.org web: http://www.samharris.org/ Sam Harris | www.samharris.org | New York | NY | 10021 La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 6 15:32:35 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 07:32:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Signaling and Social Markers In-Reply-To: <16820213.1337001168061823988.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: This post feels awkwardly personal, but I suppose many of us on this list have experienced difficulties relating with those more central on the bell curve. So, in the spirit of new year's resolutions... Pjmanney wrote: [Jef wrote:] >> Even though I can clearly see that it impairs >> effective communication, I feel strongly that >> I must be "real" and if I were to bias my style >> and presentation that it would be manipulative >> and I certainly wouldn't want people doing that >> when interacting with me. >> So, maybe there's an analogy between the clothing >> style one presents and the communication style one >> presents. For me they seem very different in terms >> of values, but I can see that they each may be >> simply a layer over the self. >> >> As Lizbeth left for work this morning she said "Maybe >> holding on to who you are gets in the way of who >> you may become." > > Please forgive me for getting to this so late. I'm still > wading through the deluge of communications from being in > rural Wisconsin without Internet or cell service... It was a > blessing and a curse. Like all technological ramifications! Welcome back! In the years before the Internet became public, I'd feel withdrawal pains if I couldn't find at least a good newspaper each day. Nowadays, if I don't have wireless, I'll sometimes drive to a library or coffee shop to get my information fix. > I've been reading a lot about empathy, as you know, Jef. And > one of the primary forms of empathy we humans display is an > unconscious mimicry and mirroring of speech patterns, facial > expressions and body language. We do it without realizing > and those who do it more are considered more empathetic and > relatable compared to those who do it less or not at all, who > are considered incommunicative or unempathetic. It's those > pesky mirror neurons again! > > You did it consciously as a manager and it was very > effective. But maybe the people closest to you need it, too. > Because it's not about being inauthentic. It's about being > relatable. Yes, that's a key point of clarification. So there's a great challenge--and some very real limitations--when attempting to convey both empathy and deep thoughts via the limited bandwidth medium of email. > > Maybe what these people are seeing is you being you, as > opposed to 'being them.' And they need to see more > 'themselves' to understand you. And I SOOOOO dislike it when people try to do that in an inauthentic way: commissioned salespeople, second-rate counselors, distant relatives, church people, politicians... to name a few. > As I've said many, many times before -- We may think we speak > the same, literal language, but how we take that information > in and what we do with it can be radically different. In > this world, we've got be become multilingual to communicate, > even with our own friends and family. You're not being > false. You're reaching out. Yes, communicating effectively is not simply putting the information out there, but about making a connection. I think a technical solution to the "authenticity problem" is to simply be up front about the fact that when it comes to communicating largely unfamiliar concepts you simply can't deliver the whole, in one shining coherent package, so, with full sincerity and authenticity, you offer a smaller chunk and see how it goes. It comes back to the bandwidth problem again, related to the fact that acquiring personal experience (personal truth) is an extended process of growth. > And don't think for one minute that I can be completely > 'myself' with anyone, including family (although my husband > gets the 100%, unpasturized, real 'me' -- he bought this cow > so long ago, that I grew into all the wacky facets of my > identity before his eyes...). None of us is so > simplistically formed that anyone can take in all our > contrary complexities without whiplash. (And yes, I can > still give him whiplash! But I think he likes it... ;-) ) > Think of it this way: the mirroring lessens their neck strain > trying to keep up with you. And makes for smoother relationships. > > Hope all is well! Yes, I'm doing well and getting ready to spend a few days in Las Vegas for CES 2007. Should be interesting. - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 15:43:12 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 10:43:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Paradox? What paradox? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60701052152v750f18ccq98cc10d4b621fe56@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60701052152v750f18ccq98cc10d4b621fe56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:52:03 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > I'd rather say the problem is a trick question rather than a paradox :) It's a real paradox, in the class of paradoxes known generically as Bertrand' Paradox(es). However they are paradoxes iff we assume the principle of indifference. Here is a different version of the same paradox: http://www.cut-the-knot.org/bertrand.shtml (This is the version of Bertrand's Paradox to which Jaynes offered a possible resolution. But as I mentioned to Ben, it's my understanding that Jaynes' apparent solution does not apply to every version of Bertrand's Paradox and so cannot be considered a real solution.) > The problem may seem vexing at first glance, until one notices that the > procedure used by the factory to choose which cube to make is not > defined in the > formulation of the problem. I might say the procedure *is* defined in the problem; that it is defined as a "random" procedure. > therefore the event of "randomly choosing" a cube is not defined > sufficiently Yes. The paradox goes away, as I think you see, when we realize we have no idea what we mean we speak of selecting a "random" cube or of performing a "random selection procedure". More generally, the principle of indifference seems not to apply to continuous variables. (I mentioned this paradox in the first place by way of criticising the principle of indifference upon which some epistemic theories of probability depend.) We can say "with respect to a random coin-flip, if we have no evidence to favor either heads or tails then we should assume the two possible outcomes to have equal probabilities". We are indifferent to the two outcomes and so the two outcomes receive the same subjective probability. This is the (supposed) principle of indifference in action. However we run into trouble when we say things like "with respect to a random cube selection (as per the paradox) we should assume the two possible outcomes have equal probabilities." Here again we are indifferent to the two possible outcomes, just as in the coin-flip example above, but the principle of indifference fails miserably. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 6 16:47:04 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 08:47:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Paradox? What paradox? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't see the origins of this thread in my email nor in the archives at http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-January/date.html. What am I missing? - Jef > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 7:43 AM > To: rafal at smigrodzki.org; ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Paradox? What paradox? > > On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:52:03 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > > I'd rather say the problem is a trick question rather than > a paradox > > :) > > It's a real paradox, in the class of paradoxes known > generically as Bertrand' Paradox(es). However they are > paradoxes iff we assume the principle of indifference. > > Here is a different version of the same paradox: > > http://www.cut-the-knot.org/bertrand.shtml > > (This is the version of Bertrand's Paradox to which Jaynes > offered a possible resolution. But as I mentioned to Ben, > it's my understanding that Jaynes' apparent solution does not > apply to every version of Bertrand's Paradox and so cannot be > considered a real solution.) > > > The problem may seem vexing at first glance, until one notices that > > the procedure used by the factory to choose which cube to > make is not > > defined in the formulation of the problem. > > I might say the procedure *is* defined in the problem; that > it is defined as a "random" procedure. > > > therefore the event of "randomly choosing" a cube is not defined > > sufficiently > > Yes. The paradox goes away, as I think you see, when we > realize we have no idea what we mean we speak of selecting a > "random" cube or of performing a "random selection procedure". > > More generally, the principle of indifference seems not to > apply to continuous variables. (I mentioned this paradox in > the first place by way of criticising the principle of > indifference upon which some epistemic theories of > probability depend.) > > We can say "with respect to a random coin-flip, if we have no > evidence to favor either heads or tails then we should assume > the two possible outcomes to have equal probabilities". We > are indifferent to the two outcomes and so the two outcomes > receive the same subjective probability. > This is the (supposed) principle of indifference in action. > > However we run into trouble when we say things like "with > respect to a random cube selection (as per the paradox) we > should assume the two possible outcomes have equal > probabilities." Here again we are indifferent to the two > possible outcomes, just as in the coin-flip example above, > but the principle of indifference fails miserably. > > -gts > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:00:09 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 18:00:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Top Canadian science-fiction writers and futurists on transhumanism Message-ID: <470a3c520701060900t372ebc84nf3ed25863880a87b@mail.gmail.com> Sun Media reporter Vivian Song speaks with top science-fiction writers, astrologists and futurists to explore what the next 50 years may hold for our newest Capricorns. Yes, Capricorns, and astrology - the article is very interested, but futurism is mixed with astrology. I suppose this is how they manage to sell newspapers these days. However, I think some horoscopes are a price worth paying for informing the public on what the future will bring. Some interesting excerpts: Given the rate of change during the past 40 years, ventures into space and computer-dependent immortality shouldn't come as a shock, said Robert Sawyer, a futurist and frequent commentator for Discovery Channel Canada. In their lifetime, children of the year 2007 will be forced to confront dilemmas their ancestors were able to evade. How do you reconcile immortality with the natural world, for instance? How will the human species respond to climate change that their predecessors set in motion? According to Sawyer, a prolific award-winning writer?he's one of seven writers in history to win all three of science-fiction's top honours for best novel of the year?by the time the child is 50, they will have the option of downloading their brain into an artificial android body and of living forever. 2028 - According to futurist consultant Richard Worzel, people can choose to have a personal computer embedded in their body, most likely under the arm, activated by body heat or drawing power from their blood supply. A microphone will be embedded in their tooth powered by bone conduction. Contact lenses will act as a computer monitor and users will be able to overlay reality with computer images. 2057 - Though their biological bodies may have worn out, the rich will be able to buy more time in an android body, Sawyer said. "Transhumanism. For a person born Jan. 1, 2007, they will have a choice at that point." Indeterminate life expectancies will also mean more people will draw more heavily and longer on the country's health plan. How long will people be allowed to work? "You're opening up social questions that have never had to be asked before . . . to which there's been no need. The answers become urgent to which there are no precedents and people will fight for what they think they're entitled to." At the same time, Sawyer offered a sunny view of immortality, saying the potential to achieve unrivalled human brilliance and creativity is no longer hindered by the pesky passage of time. Oh, I had forgotten. The ruling colours of Capricorn babies born in 2007 will be blue and black. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jan 6 17:21:47 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 18:21:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: "Parents Defend Decision to Keep Girl Small" In-Reply-To: <200701060250.l062oqfL022044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <39240.72.236.102.107.1168001163.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200701060250.l062oqfL022044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070106172147.GV6974@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 06:38:48PM -0800, spike wrote: > have gotten stricter on maximum loads workers are allowed to hoist. Would > not these two factors conspire to make the nurses job ever harder? So where are all these promised Japanese nursing and life-assist robots? It seems they could become big export hits, sooner than expected. -- 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 natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jan 6 19:36:01 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 13:36:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: "Parents Defend Decision to Keep Girl Small" In-Reply-To: <20070106172147.GV6974@leitl.org> References: <39240.72.236.102.107.1168001163.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200701060250.l062oqfL022044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070106172147.GV6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070106133435.03ea76d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:21 AM 1/6/2007, 'gene wrote: >So where are all these promised Japanese nursing and life-assist robots? Exactly. 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 pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 20:15:53 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 20:15:53 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: "Parents Defend Decision to Keep Girl Small" In-Reply-To: <20070106172147.GV6974@leitl.org> References: <39240.72.236.102.107.1168001163.squirrel@main.nc.us> <200701060250.l062oqfL022044@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070106172147.GV6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 1/6/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > So where are all these promised Japanese nursing and life-assist robots? > It seems they could become big export hits, sooner than expected. > Here? also at: Top 10 robots selected for Robot Award 2006 UPDATE Dec 21, 2006: Winners announced (Note: These are the ten winners from 152 applications, so there is plenty of other work going on). SERVICE ROBOTS: - Paro ? seal robot with therapeutic properties (Intelligent System/ AIST/ Microgenics) Paro is a furry white robot modeled after a baby harp seal. Paro is fitted with sensors beneath its fur and whiskers that let it respond to petting by opening and closing its eyes and moving its flippers. More than 800 of the seal robots, developed by Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science, are used for therapy in Japanese nursing homes and by autistic and handicapped children, according to the award's Web site. - My Spoon ? meal assistance robot (SECOM) Designed to assist patients unable to use their hands, My Spoon enables users to enjoy ordinary meals by transporting food from a tray to the patient's mouth, one bite at a time. Robotic building cleaning system (Fuji Heavy Industries/ Sumitomo) This autonomous robot roams the hallways of buildings, performing cleaning operations along the way. Capable of controlling elevators, the robot can move from floor to floor unsupervised, and it returns to its start location once it has finished cleaning. The robot is currently employed as a janitor at 10 high-rise buildings in Japan, including Harumi Triton Square and Roppongi Hills. INDUSTRIAL ROBOTS: - MOTOMAN-DIA10/ MOTOMAN-IA20 (Yaskawa Electric) These industrial robot arms are capable of human-like movement, which is great news for factories worried about Japan's shrinking population (and human labor force). The DIA10 consists of two 7-axis arms mounted on a torso. High-speed reliability verification robot (Denso Wave) This robot relies on advanced machine vision technology to perform automated inspections on the go. Highly reliable inspections can be performed at each location without stopping the line, allowing for speedier and more cost-effective operations. PUBLIC SECTOR ROBOTS: - Tele-operated construction equipment (Fujita/ Technical Office of Kyushu, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Kyugi)) These remote-control unmanned construction machines were originally developed for dangerous recovery operations following disasters such as avalanches and rockslides. Designed to prevent the occurrence of secondary disasters and greatly limit further damage and injury, these robots were deployed at the site of a disastrous mudslide that occurred in Okinawa in June 2006. - Urashima ? deep-sea autonomous underwater vehicle (Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology) Urashima is a remotely operated vehicle for deep-sea exploration. The 10-meter long vessel relies on hydrogen-based fuel cell batteries that allow it to travel much greater distances than vessels powered by standard lithium-ion batteries. Urashima is expected to play an important role in pre-dive surveys for manned submarines and in the survey of areas considered dangerous for or inaccessible by manned research submarines. I suspect there is understandable reluctance to give autonomous robots authority to look after disabled humans. Assistance first, under strict control. Then more development in future. BillK From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 22:01:31 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:01:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Paradox? What paradox? In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60701052152v750f18ccq98cc10d4b621fe56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Here is yet another paradoxical consequence of the Principle of Indifference. (The Principle of Indifference is a principle of epistemic [non-objectivist] probability theory, which states that if each of n possibilities are indistinguishable except for their names -- that is if we have no reason to expect one possibility more than another -- then each possibility should be assigned a probability equal to 1/n.) These paradoxes demonstrate what happens when we apply the principle to continuous variables. Suppose we have a mixture of wine and water and we know that at most there is 3 times as much of one as the other, but nothing about the mixture. We have: (1/3) is less than or equal to (wine/water) is less than or equal to (3) and by the Principle of Indifference, the ratio of wine to water has a uniform probability density in the interval [1/3, 3]. Therefore... Probability that wine/water is less than or equal to 2 = (2 - 1/3)/(3-1/3) = 5/8 But also... (1/3) is less than or equal to (wine/water) is less than or equal to (3) And by the Principle of Indifference, the ratio of water to wine has a uniform probability density in the interval [1/3, 3]. Therefore... Probability that water/wine is greater than or equal to 1/2 = (3 - 1/2)/(3-1/3) = 15/16 But the events (wine/water is less than or equal to 2) and (water/wine is greater than or equal to 1/2) are the same, and the Principle of Indifference gives them different probabilities.* Moral of the story: the Principle of Indifference is at best problematic and at worst completely mistaken, at least with respect to continuous variables. -gts *Gillies, 2000 From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 22:21:14 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:21:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Paradox? What paradox? In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60701052152v750f18ccq98cc10d4b621fe56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I miss-typed... > But also... > > (1/3) is less than or equal to (wine/water) is less than or equal to (3) Sorry, that should be "(water/wine)" in that sentence, not "(wine/water)" as in the previous otherwise identical sentence. -gts From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 22:27:04 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:27:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?. In-Reply-To: <020201c7302f$91a711b0$440d4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <414963.91775.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > "gts" > > > something is frequent because it is probable" is > to say that the > > probability of an outcome is a property of the > object itself > > If Copenhagen is right then I think that must be > true; but if it is true > then the Monty Hall problem escalates from an > amusing little puzzle into a > full blown logical paradox. Yes. There seems to be only three ways out of this conundrum of the Monty Hall problem under Copenhagen: 1. Conscious observers are needed to resolve the liklihood of an event and probability itself is epistemological in nature. 2. In the absence of any known conscious observers, the inanimate objects of the universe make Bayesian style INFERENCES regarding the liklihood of events "happening" to them based on previous outcomes. Thus probability is ontological in nature. Note that this implies that every bit of the universe has "memory" and makes "decisions". 3. 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive and thus both ontological and epistemological probabilities exist. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Aagghh! Who knew that bio-engineered food would lead to smart puke." -Willy the school janitor from the Simpsons. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 6 23:16:28 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:16:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Paradox? What paradox? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: gts wrote: > Here is yet another paradoxical consequence of the Principle > of Indifference. Make that "Here is yet another paradoxical consequence of misapplication of the Principle of Indifference" and all will be well. - Jef From ben at goertzel.org Sat Jan 6 23:17:46 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 18:17:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Paradox? What paradox? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701061513y3420267er4514eb7cc075a37b@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60701052152v750f18ccq98cc10d4b621fe56@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701061513y3420267er4514eb7cc075a37b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701061517n26243c46q8594fab0596476ed@mail.gmail.com> Trying again, my previous attempt to send this message resulted in it getting bounced back as SPAM ... ben g On 1/6/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > Von Mises' wine/water paradox is fairly convincingly addressed in > > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002487/01/Indifference_new_...Burock_2005.pdf > > where it is shown that the paradox goes away if one assumes a 2D > sample space covering the set of pair of values > > (wine/water, water/wine) > > as is appropriate since these two ratios are dependent quantities. > > This suggests that the Principle of Indifference is tricky but perhaps > not completely mistaken. > > Paradoxes involving the PI are derived by assuming multiple > contradictory sample spaces for the same problem, whereas it is only > legit to compare to probabilities if they are derived within the same > sample space. > > -- Ben G > > On 1/6/07, gts wrote: > > Here is yet another paradoxical consequence of the Principle of > > Indifference. > > > > (The Principle of Indifference is a principle of epistemic > > [non-objectivist] probability theory, which states that if each of n > > possibilities are indistinguishable except for their names -- that is if > > we have no reason to expect one possibility more than another -- then each > > possibility should be assigned a probability equal to 1/n.) > > > > These paradoxes demonstrate what happens when we apply the principle to > > continuous variables. > > > > Suppose we have a mixture of wine and water and we know that at most there > > is 3 times as much of one as the other, but nothing about the mixture. We > > have: > > > > (1/3) is less than or equal to (wine/water) is less than or equal to (3) > > > > and by the Principle of Indifference, the ratio of wine to water has a > > uniform probability density in the interval [1/3, 3]. Therefore... > > > > Probability that wine/water is less than or equal to 2 = (2 - 1/3)/(3-1/3) > > = 5/8 > > > > But also... > > > > (1/3) is less than or equal to (wine/water) is less than or equal to (3) > > > > And by the Principle of Indifference, the ratio of water to wine has a > > uniform probability density in the interval [1/3, 3]. Therefore... > > > > Probability that water/wine is greater than or equal to 1/2 = (3 - > > 1/2)/(3-1/3) = 15/16 > > > > But the events (wine/water is less than or equal to 2) and (water/wine is > > greater than or equal to 1/2) are the same, and the Principle of > > Indifference gives them different probabilities.* > > > > Moral of the story: the Principle of Indifference is at best problematic > > and at worst completely mistaken, at least with respect to continuous > > variables. > > > > -gts > > > > *Gillies, 2000 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Sun Jan 7 00:10:26 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:10:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:42:46 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > Yes, I would assert that in a very deep sense all statements of > probability entail a subjective viewpoint and that *ideally* the > assessed probability will match the actual likelihood. Subjective Bayesians, (at least the purists), follow after De Finetti and deny the objective reality of probabilities altogether. They say objective probabilities are but illusions created by agreement between people about their subjective assessments. Is this also your point of view? My guess is it is not; you make a distinction in the sentence above between "subjective" and "actual", and so I take your word "actual" to mean something close or identical to "objective". -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 7 02:03:50 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 18:03:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: gts wrote: > On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:42:46 -0500, Jef Allbright > > wrote: > > > Yes, I would assert that in a very deep sense all statements of > > probability entail a subjective viewpoint and that *ideally* the > > assessed probability will match the actual likelihood. > > Subjective Bayesians, (at least the purists), follow after De > Finetti and deny the objective reality of probabilities > altogether. I don't know about De Finetti, but it seems to me that all statements of probability necessarily entail a subjective viewpoint as I said above. > They say objective probabilities are but > illusions created by agreement between people about their > subjective assessments. Is this also your point of view? I have made the point many times on this list that a statement can be considered "objective" only within a specified context. No one has the ultimate objective god's-eye view. This is not quite the same as saying that such are illusions created by agreement. Many observations are "objective" for all practical purposes, and it would be misleading to call them illusions. Rather, it's a matter of description within context. > My guess is it is not; you make a distinction in the sentence > above between "subjective" and "actual", and so I take your > word "actual" to mean something close or identical to "objective". As a matter ultimately of faith (based on a maximum entropy approach to explanation of empirical evidence) I assume a "real" universe describable (in principle, at any particular moment) in coherent and consistent terms from any particular frame of reference. It is in this context that I refer to "actual" likelihood, knowing that there will always be some (possibly negligible) uncertainty in the observation. In my original post I used the term "ideally" to emphasize this point. - Jef From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 09:41:41 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 09:41:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Easter Island not a human-created disaster? Message-ID: Rethinking the Fall of Easter Island New evidence points to an alternative explanation for a civilization's collapse Terry L. Hunt Easter Island has become a case study of human-induced environmental disaster, or "ecocide." The popular narrative, most famously recounted in Jared Diamond's book Collapse, depicts native inhabitants triggering the fall of their once-flourishing civilization by cutting down all of the island's trees. But recent archaeological and paleoenvironmental research point to a very different story. The island may not have been settled until around 1200 A.D., centuries later than previously thought, and it may have been a large rat population, not the human inhabitants, that caused widespread deforestation. This evidence sheds new light on a story that has long fascinated outsiders. So, to sum up, this article claims that the evidence shows that a plague of rats ate all the palm seeds and caused the deforestation. The human population started later and was much smaller than previous estimates up to the time that European contact provided diseases and slave-trading that finished the islanders off. Not much room for evolutionary psychology in this scenario. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Sun Jan 7 12:52:31 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:52:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Easter Island not a human-created disaster? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070107125231.GK6974@leitl.org> On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 09:41:41AM +0000, BillK wrote: > So, to sum up, this article claims that the evidence shows that a > plague of rats ate all the palm seeds and caused the deforestation. Of course rats spread via the human ships. Perturbing ecological systems by introducing alien species (rats, goats, etc) is only a yet another mechanism by which humans alter existing ecosystems, typically to their own disadvantage. > The human population started later and was much smaller than previous > estimates up to the time that European contact provided diseases and IIRC, the estimates were made on the base of human labor required to build and maintain the statues and the pedestals. > slave-trading that finished the islanders off. I'm not saying this study is bogus, but I'd like to see more evidence than just this isolated study. > Not much room for evolutionary psychology in this scenario. Assuming you're correct in this particular case, do you think all the other cases in 'Collapse' are similiarly dubious or bogus? -- 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 bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Jan 7 13:31:42 2007 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 00:31:42 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes References: Message-ID: <006901c73260$2b8e3e20$52e98f9b@homepc> > From: Natasha Vita-More >>I know I don't write much but I read the digest and its good to see some >>of >>the ol' gang is still alive and kickin'. > > Better than ever! That's the 'spirit'. Good to hear :-) >>Been watchin that futures market stuff coming along nicely Robin. > > Do you urls re Robin's work that you want to share with us? > > Natasha Not offhand. Though it probably likely to be instructive to Google "Robin Hanson" + pretty_much_any_topic_in_this_area - (I say, not having bothered to have done it myself). What *I've* been impressed with, and what *I* associate with a trend in the direction, supported by Robin's work, though they may not be themselves aware of it and perhaps Robin may not be either, is the recent establishment of Betfair in Australia, following its being granted a licence in the state of Tasmania. Brett From bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au Sun Jan 7 14:22:38 2007 From: bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au (Brett Paatsch) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:22:38 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes References: Message-ID: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> > From: "Mike Dougherty" > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] yo extropes > To: "ExI chat list" > Message-ID: > <62c14240701051324j396719fau6b0fca6878152b5c at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On 1/5/07, Brett Paatsch wrote: >> >> happy new year to ya's (even you'se american ones who might not >> be so fully deserving of it) >> > > I would have let this go completely if I were actually offended by it, > but I'm curious what makes you say something like that? > > Seriously, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just want to better > understand your worldview. G'day Mike. You ask a fair question courteously but I don't know you. You seem to be a newcomer to the list. Can you give me a brief introduction to yourself first? - that would help me to help you to understand my "worldview". Brett From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 17:39:59 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:39:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yahoo! Predictions Market Video? Message-ID: <5366105b0701070939i39aba519u8bbed4f2c090a908@mail.gmail.com> Has anyone got a link to share for an archived copy of this? -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jonkc at att.net Sun Jan 7 18:03:16 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:03:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: Message-ID: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> "Jef Allbright" > all statements of probability necessarily entail a subjective viewpoint Everybody thought that a century ago, but not now. It's not just a good idea for there to be a 50% probability of this atom decaying in the next hour, it's THE LAW. > No one has the ultimate objective god's-eye view. Are you sure? John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 18:25:14 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 13:25:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Paradox? What paradox? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701061513y3420267er4514eb7cc075a37b@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60701052152v750f18ccq98cc10d4b621fe56@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701061513y3420267er4514eb7cc075a37b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Here is the explanation of the cube paradox as given by the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy": "The paradox [about choosing a random cube] arises because the principle of indifference can be used in incompatible ways. We have no evidence that favors the side-length lying in the interval [0, 1/2] over its lying in [1/2, 1], or vice versa, so the principle requires us to give probability 1/2 to each. Unfortunately, we also have no evidence that favors the face-area lying in any of the four intervals [0, 1/4], [1/4, 1/2], [1/2, 3/4], and [3/4, 1] over any of the others, so we must give probability 1/4 to each. The event ?the side-length lies in [0, 1/2]?, receives a different probability when merely redescribed. And so it goes, for all the other reformulations of the problem. We cannot meet any pair of these constraints simultaneously, let alone all of them." http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2003/entries/probability-interpret/ This explanation fits well with Gillies' assessment that the principle of indifference is best considered a heuristic principle and not a logical principle. Logical principles should be true in some absolute sense, while heuristic principles may sometimes lead us astray. However I am encouraged by the paper Ben cited... > Von Mises' wine/water paradox is fairly convincingly addressed in > > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002487/01/Indifference_new_...Burock_2005.pdf > where it is shown that the paradox goes away if one assumes a 2D > sample space covering the set of pair of values I agree these paradoxes seem "fairly convincingly addressed". Thanks Ben! I think Burock's main insight here, (applicable not only to the wine/water paradox but to the others as well), is that the paradoxes may be resolved when one considers that "the probability of an outcome is fundamentally dependent upon the specific sample space in which the outcome is contained". I wonder if his paper has created any stir in academia. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 7 19:01:29 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:01:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John K Clark wrote: > "Jef Allbright" > > > all statements of probability necessarily entail a subjective > > viewpoint > > Everybody thought that a century ago, but not now. It's not > just a good idea for there to be a 50% probability of this > atom decaying in the next hour, it's THE LAW. This example falls at the end of the range where the degree of subjectivity is minimal and for all practical purposes (other than philosophical debate) negligible. However, we should remain aware that such a statement of probability, or in a more general sense, uncertainty, is still an output of some system working from a prior and a likelihood function within a context less than perfectly objective. > > > No one has the ultimate objective god's-eye view. > > Are you sure? > John, did you intend to be funny here? Or (more likely) did you intend this to be a trick question? Or were you not paying attention when I said that *all* statements of probability are subjective, and thus to some (possibly negligible degree) less than sure? - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 19:33:24 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:33:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:03:50 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > I assume a "real" universe describable (in principle,at any particular > moment) in coherent and consistent termsfrom any particular frame of > reference. Concerning this universe you assume... Do you assume it exists objectively, separate from your awareness and knowledge? If yes then do you assume also that what you call "actual likelihoods" exist objectively, separate from your "subjective assessments" of them? If yes to both questions then I think objectivists have no disagreement with you, and that in fact you should count yourself among them. -gts From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 20:20:01 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 15:20:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> References: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> Message-ID: <62c14240701071220m1336670ej803d104bf6116a9@mail.gmail.com> On 1/7/07, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >> happy new year to ya's (even you'se american ones who might not > >> be so fully deserving of it) > > I would have let this go completely if I were actually offended by it, > > but I'm curious what makes you say something like that? > You ask a fair question courteously but I don't know you. You seem to > be a newcomer to the list. Can you give me a brief introduction to > yourself first? - that would help me to help you to understand my > "worldview". I find that to be a difficult question. I live in America, which is why I wanted to know what you meant. I have recently worked with an Italian living in America, and he gave me a very interesting italian/european perspective on american culture. I currently work with an indian woman, who we more often have to ask direct questions comparing our cultures. I find the change in perspective very interesting. I think this is mostly due to our (american) myopic view of our own importance in the world. Compared with the cultural identity age of countries like Italy and India, we're probably suffering from adolescent hubris. Considering that Australia's cultural identity has had similar time to mature as the US (and from the same UK parent :) I wonder if you see a similar nationalist attitude, or if you have also experienced examples of immigrant cultures this way. I haven't lived in many different cities in my own country, but I have seen how a few dozen miles of geography can change attitudes towards larger common issues (as well as how dramatically the local concerns change) I feel the internet affords us access to neighbors in the global village in ways that only the fabulously wealthy from as little as 50 years ago could even begin to appreciate. I am a fairly recent subscriber to this group. I'm currently employed as a web/application developer. The anthropology musings are just a hobby. That might have some relation to my theory that tractable problems get solved fairly quickly, so in order to hold our interests we need to think about the apparently-intractable. From ben at goertzel.org Sun Jan 7 21:28:07 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:28:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> > > > all statements of probability necessarily entail a subjective > > > viewpoint > > > > Everybody thought that a century ago, but not now. It's not > > just a good idea for there to be a 50% probability of this > > atom decaying in the next hour, it's THE LAW. That is silly ... it is not a "law" legislated by some legislative body; it's an inductive observation made by humans based on looking at the output of their experimental machinery, and furthermore defined in terms of words and mathematical operations that are part of human culture. Read Imre Lakatos on the validation of scientific research programmes and get back to me next month ;-> [Or, if you're really adventurous, check out my Goertzellian philosophy of science, which basically agrees with Lakatos but adds a little more meat ... http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/PhilosophyOfScience_v2.htm ] A key point Lakatos made is that scientific statements (like "this atom will decay in the next hour with 50% probability") are not even **defined** outside of the language of some particular scientific research programme. This leads to the notion of "incommensurability" between rival research programmes, and the need to compare rival programmes via criteria like productivity and generativity rather than comparison to "objective truth". Which is how science has worked in reality -- not via "objective truth" being used to decide between research programmes... In short, the history of science strongly supports the notion of probability estimates as degrees of belief; your scientific example doesn't effectively argue for an objectivist perspective on probability... -- Ben G From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 21:34:41 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:34:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <006901c73260$2b8e3e20$52e98f9b@homepc> References: <006901c73260$2b8e3e20$52e98f9b@homepc> Message-ID: On 1/7/07, Brett Paatsch wrote: > > > What *I've* been impressed with, and what *I* associate with a trend > in the direction, supported by Robin's work, though they may not be > themselves aware of it and perhaps Robin may not be either, is the recent > establishment of Betfair in Australia, [snip] He may not be aware of trends in AU, but I'm relatively sure he is aware of a lot of other activities. I almost fell out of my chair when watching one of the cable CNN or FNN channels a few months ago that featured a lecture/discussion of current economics/futures market trends and there before my very eyes was Robin, in person, being his usual self (outside of the box, very expert, IMO). That is one of the problems with sitting comfortably in ones transhumanist chair... Turn it over and you might well find a label "Made by Polymath Futures, LLC". Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 23:17:01 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:47:01 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Wikileaks needs you. In-Reply-To: <20070107145345.959532AF31A@suburbia.com.au> References: <20070107145345.959532AF31A@suburbia.com.au> Message-ID: <710b78fc0701071517n210dcd21l9afc7fb9aea8563@mail.gmail.com> Anyone come across this? Emlyn ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Julian Assange Date: 07-Jan-2007 21:29 Subject: Wikileaks needs you. To: Emlyn Dear friends! Are you interested in being involved with a courageous project to reform every political system on earth -- and through that reform move the world to a more humane state? Wikileaks, a project I've been working on is in the middle of an exponential media cascade. From a single blog reference 4 days ago to 51,000 google pages now and articles out next week by washington post, science, new scientist, forbes, etc. people have even translated the philosophy into german and spanish! It's great! But we weren't going to launch for at least two months. Now we have only 22 people trying to usher in the start of a world wide movement. We don't have time to reply to most reporter's emails, let alone the interview requests -- and I leave for Africa (wsf2007.org) in under a week! http://www.wikileaks.org/ Read the FAQ. More details as we write them. google / blog search wikileaks If you've ever wanted to help me with something, now is the time. If you want to pledge support for something that will make a difference, pledge support for this. Cell phone contacts on http://iq.org Skype, 'wikileaks' We need help in every area, admining, coding, sys admining, legal research, analysis, writing, proofing, manning the phone, standing around looking pretty, even making tea. Julian. ps. happy new year! Sorry if you got multiple copies of this. From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 8 04:17:43 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:17:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Sam Harris controversy Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070107221623.022f4ce0@satx.rr.com> LETTER FROM SAM January 6, 2006 Sam Harris writes to his mailing list: Dear Readers, Some of you may have noticed an article about me that is now running on Alternet.org. The writer, John Gorenfeld, has taken a ninety minute telephone interview, along with selective passages from my books, and made of them a poisonous of mash of misquotation and paraphrasis for the purpose of portraying me as an evil lunatic. While some level of innocent distortion can be expected in print interviews, this case appears genuinely malicious. You can find Gorenfeld's account of me here <http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/>. Please feel free to post comments of your own to the site. If you want to alert the management at Alternet of your displeasure, the contact page can be found here <http://alternet.org/about/contact.html>. As you will see, Gorenfeld distorts my views on torture, spiritual experience, and the paranormal. For the record, I have summarized my views on these subjects on my website <http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/>. All the best, Sam ------------ SAM HARRIS'S FAITH IN EASTERN SPIRITUALITY AND MUSLIM TORTURE By John Gorenfeld AlterNet January 6, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/ Sam Harris's books "The End Of Faith" and "Letter To A Christian Nation" have established him as second only to the British biologist and author Richard Dawkins in the ranks of famous 21st century atheists. The thrust of Harris's best-sellers is that with the world so crazed by religion, it's high time Americans stopped tolerating faith in the Rapture, the Resurrection and anything else not grounded in evidence. Only trouble is, our country's foremost promoter of "reason" is also supportive of ESP, reincarnation and other unscientific concepts. Not all of it is harmless yoga class hokum -- he's also a proponent of waterboarding and other forms of torture. "We know [torture] works. It has worked. It's just a lie to say that it has never worked," he says. "Accidentally torturing a few innocent people" is no big deal next to bombing them, he continues. Why sweat it? I wanted to interview Harris to find out why a man sold to the American public as the voice of scientific reason is promoting Hindu gods and mind reading in his writing. But we spend much of our time discussing his call for torture and his Buddhist perspectives on "compassionately killing the bad guy." In 2004, Sam Harris' award-winning first book said society should demote Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief to an embarrassment that "disgraces anyone who would claim it," in doing so catapulting him from obscure UCLA grad student -- the son of a Quaker father -- to national voice of atheism. "The End of Faith" may be the first book suitable for the Eastern Philosophy shelf at Barnes & Noble that somehow incorporates both torture and New Age piety, and offers pleas for clear scientific thinking alongside appeals to "mysticism." The old-fashioned brand of atheist, like the late Carl Sagan, argued eloquently against religion without supporting rituals and ghosts. Harris, however, argues that not just Western gods but philosophers are "dwarfs" next to the Buddhas. And a Harris passage on psychics recommends that curious readers spend time with the study "20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation." Asked which cases are most suggestive of reincarnation, Harris admits to being won over by accounts of "xenoglossy," in which people abruptly begin speaking languages they don't know. Remember the girl in "The Exorcist"? "When a kid starts speaking Bengali, we have no idea scientifically what's going on," Harris tells me. It's hard to believe what I'm hearing from the man the New York Times hails as atheism's "standard-bearer." Harris writes: "There seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which have been ignored by mainstream science." On the phone he backpedals away from the claim. "I've received a little bit of grief for that," he says. "I certainly don't say that I'm confident that psychic phenomena exist. I'm open-minded. I would just like to see the data." To see the "data" yourself, "The End of Faith" points readers to a slew of paranormal studies. One is Dr. Ian Stevenson's "Unlearned Language: New Studies in Xenoglossy." The same author's reincarnation book presents for your consideration the past life of Ravi Shankar, the sitar player who introduced the Beatles to the Maharishi. He was born with a birthmark, it says, right where his past self was knifed to death, aged two. Making the case for the "20 Cases" researcher, Harris sounds almost like "Chronicles of Narnia" author C.S. Lewis, who said Jesus could only be a liar or the Son of God. "Either he is a victim of truly elaborate fraud, or something interesting is going on," Harris says. "Most scientists would say this doesn't happen. Most would say that if it does happen, it's a case of fraud. ... It's hard to see why anyone would be perpetrating a fraud -- everyone was made miserable by this [xenoglossy] phenomenon." Pressed, he admits that some of the details might after all be "fishy." Another book he lists is "The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena." "These are people who have spent a fair amount of time looking at the data," Harris explains. The author, professor Dean Radin of North California's Institute of Noetic Sciences, which is not accredited for scientific peer review, proclaims: "Psi [mind power] has been shown to exist in thousands of experiments." Harris has spent the past two years doing "full-time infidel" duty, in his words. His second book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," takes the infidel persona and runs with it, lashing back at Christians for their intolerance toward his first book. In a versatile turn, however, Harris moonlights as inquisitor as well as heretic. Without irony, he switches hats between chapters of "The End of Faith." Chapter 3 finds him complaining that the medieval Church tortured Jews over phony "blood libel" conspiracies. Then in chapter 6, "A Science of Good & Evil," he devotes several pages to upholding the "judicial torture" of Muslims, a practice for which "reasonable men and women" have come out. Torture then and now: The difference, he tells AlterNet, is that the Inquisition "manufactured" crimes and forced Jews to confess "fictional accomplices." But if the Iraq War hasn't been about "fictional accomplices," what has? "There's nothing about my writing about torture that should suggest I supported what was going on in Abu Ghraib," says Harris, who supported the invasion but says it has become a "travesty." "We abused people who we know had no intelligence value." While our soldiers are waging war on Islam in our detention centers, according to Harris, our civilians must evolve past churchgoing to "modern spiritual practice," he writes. "[M]ysticism is a rational enterprise," he writes in his book, arguing it lets spiritualists "uncover genuine facts about the world." And he tells AlterNet there are "social pressures" against research into ESP. Society is remarkably free, however, in airing justifications for putting Muslims to the thumbscrews. Harris's case for torture is this: since "we" are OK with horrific collateral damage, "we" should have no qualms against waterboarding, the lesser evil. "It's better than death." Better, in other words, than bombing innocents. Then again, Sam Harris is not devoting his time in the media to call for an end to bombing civilians. Attacking the sacred cow of airstrikes might have been a real heresy, true to his Quaker roots but ensuring himself exile from cable news. Instead the logic he lays out -- that Islam itself is our enemy -- invites the reader to feel comfort at the deaths of its believers. He writes: "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." Playing his part in last year's War Over Christmas, Harris plays it safe with "Letter to a Christian Nation." The book lumbers under a title so heavy, you'd think Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote it from prison. While keeping the Christian Nation on notice that Harris remains disdainful of "wasting time" on Jesus, he now calls for something of an alliance with the Right against Muslim Arabs and the "head-in-the-sand liberals" he denounced in a recent editorial. "Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you, dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living," he writes. Thus praising the hard Right for its "moral clarity" in the War on Terror, Harris reserves much of his wrath for nonfundamentalist Christians, whom he considers enablers of a virgin-birth sham. Fine, but the alternative to Jesus that Harris recommends in "The End of Faith" is a menu of messiahs. There is Shankara, an avatar of the god Shiva whose water pot could stop floods. There is the first Buddha and his 8th-century successor Padmasambhava. After materializing on a lotus leaf at age 8, Padmasambhava cast a spell that changed his friend into a tiger. "That is objectively stupider than the doctrine of the virgin birth," Harris says in the interview, however. Like any religious moderate, he has picked and chosen what he likes from a religion. On the one hand, there's an obligatory swipe in "The End of Faith" against Pakistan and India for threatening to nuke each other over "fanciful" religious disputes. The equal-offender pose doesn't slow Harris from claiming the supremacy of Shankara and other oracles over Europe's entire secular brain trust. For thousands of years, "personal transformation [...] seems to have been thought too much to ask" of Western philosophers, he complains petulantly, as if finding the entire Enlightenment short on self-help tips. He likes that Buddhism will make you relax. And "dial in various mental states," he says. In the classic case, he says, "you see various lights or see bliss." And like a Scientologist cleric promising you the state of Clear, evicting alien ghosts ruining your life, Harris expresses a faith that his own style of pleasurable mental exploration ushers in good deeds. Meditation, he says, will drive out whatever it is "that leads you to lie to people or be intrinsically selfish." So it purges your sins? "You become free to notice how everyone else is suffering," he says. Well, some more than others. We all need our illusions. But doesn't his, a mishmash of Buddhism and "Time-Life Mysteries of The Unknown," weaken his case against Christians? His answer is that Buddhism is a superior product for including the doctrine of "non-dualism," or unity. "The teachings about self-transcending love in Buddhism go on for miles," he says. "There's just a few lines in the Bible." And hundreds in Dostoyevsky and the Confessions of St. Augustine, but never mind: Harris's argument that "belief is action" rests on treating works like the Old Testament not as complex cultural fables but something akin to your TiVo instruction manual. Though it lapses in skepticism, Harris's work has won a surprising following among nonmystics. Times science writer Natalie Angier felt "vindicated, almost personally understood" reading it, she wrote in a review. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has practically adopted Harris as the American Robin to his Batman in confronting unreason wherever it may lurk in the hearts of men. "The End of Faith" should "replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land," blurbs Dawkins. When that happens, Muslims will check into the Best Western and find a text cheering their torture. Legendary for his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial, American attorney Clarence Darrow wrote of his admiration for his forbearer Voltaire, the original 18th-century renegade against the church. He thanked Voltaire for dealing superstition a "mortal wound" -- and for an end to torture. "Among the illustrious heroes who have banished this sort of cruelty from the Western world, no other name will stand so high and shine so bright." And then among those who want to bring it back, there stands Sam Harris. "They're not talking," Harris is telling me, imagining a torture scenario where the captives clam up, "quite amused at our unwillingness to make them uncomfortable." No, it's not the sticky (and real) case of Jose Padilla, the detainee who may have been reduced by his treatment to mind mush, possibly ruining his trial. Instead he's sketching out a kind of Steven Seagal action movie scenario in which we lasso Osama or his gang, maybe on the eve of a terror plot. What to do? "We should say we don't do it," Harris says of torture. "We should say it's reprehensible." And then do it anyway, he says. So there it is. In Harris's vision of future America, we will pursue "personal transformation" and gaze into our personal "I-we" riddles, while the distant gurgles of Arabs, terrified by the threat of drowning, will drift into our Eastern-influenced sacred space, the government's press releases no more than soothing Zen koans. ------------ RESPONSE TO CONTROVERSY By Sam Harris http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/ A few of the subjects that I raised in The End of Faith continue to inspire an unusual amount of malicious commentary, selective quotation, and controversy. I've elaborated on these topics here: My position on torture: In The End of Faith, I argue that competing religious doctrines have divided our world into separate moral communities, and that these divisions have become a continuous source of human violence. My purpose in writing the book was to offer a way of thinking about our world that would render certain forms of conflict, quite literally, unthinkable. In one section of the book (pp. 192-199), I briefly discuss the ethics of torture and collateral damage in times of war, arguing that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board. Rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, some readers have mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. Nevertheless, there are certain extreme circumstances in which I believe that torture may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary. I am not alone in this. Liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. While rare, such "ticking-bomb" scenarios actually do occur. As we move into an age of nuclear and biological terrorism, it is in everyone's interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done when a prisoner clearly has operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity, but won't otherwise talk about it. My argument for the limited use of torture is essentially this: if you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to torture a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk torturing someone who just happens to look like Osama bin Laden). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of torturing high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, many of us tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make travesties like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. Indeed, I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to have been patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. It is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws will create as slippery a slope as many people imagine. We have a capital punishment provision, for instance, but this has not led to our killing prisoners at random because we can't control ourselves. While I am opposed to capital punishment, I can readily admit that we are not suffering a total moral chaos in our society because we execute about five people every month. It is not immediately obvious that a rule about torture could not be applied with equal restraint. I may be true, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences. In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, "The Dark Art of Interrogation." Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason. But our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world. While my discussion of torture spans only a few pages in a book devoted to reducing the causes of religious violence, many readers have found this discussion deeply unsettling. I have invited them, both publicly and privately, to produce an ethical argument that takes into account the realities of our world -- our daily acceptance of collateral damage, the real possibility of nuclear terrorism, etc. -- and yet rules out the practice of torture in all conceivable circumstances. No one, to my knowledge, has done this. And yet, my critics continue to speak and write as though a knock-down argument against torture in all circumstances is readily available. I consider it to be one of the more dangerous ironies of liberal discourse that merely discussing the possibility of torturing a man like Osama bin Laden provokes more outrage than the maiming and murder of innocent civilians ever does. Until someone actually points out what is wrong with the "collateral damage argument" presented in The End of Faith. I will continue to believe that my critics are just not thinking clearly about the reality of human suffering. ............ My views on the paranormal - ESP, reincarnation, etc.: My position on the paranormal is this: While there have been many frauds in the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been unfairly stigmatized. If some experimental psychologists want to spend their days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleges), I would like to know about it. However, I have not spent any time attempting to authenticate the data put forward in books like Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe or Ian Stevenson's 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists. ............ My views on Eastern mysticism, Buddhism, etc.: My views on "mystical" or "spiritual" experience are extensively described in The End of Faith and do not entail the acceptance of anything on faith. There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a result of engaging contemplative disciplines like meditation, and there is no question that these experiences shed some light on the nature of the human mind (any experience does, for that matter). What is highly questionable are the metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the basis of such experiences. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support the metaphysical claims of others. There are several neuroscience labs now studying the effects of meditation on the brain. While I am not personally engaged in this research, I know many of the scientists who are. This is now a fertile field of sober inquiry, purposed toward understanding the possibilities of human well-being better than we do at present. While I consider Buddhism almost unique among the world's religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. My criticism of Buddhism as a faith has been published in essay form, to the consternation of many Buddhists. It is available here: Killing the Buddha: http://tinyurl.com/oy972 From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 8 04:14:48 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:14:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] new stem cell source In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701080432.l084WK36015069@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Cool! http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/07/stem.cells.ap/index.html From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 8 04:39:24 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:39:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Sam Harris controversy In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070107221623.022f4ce0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070107221623.022f4ce0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701072039m9fc4deak8ed794fd46e6b9c3@mail.gmail.com> Wow -- Harris is right, that article certainly did misrepresent his views in an absurd way... Shame on Sam Harris for having a moderately intelligent and subtle perspective that cannot be immediately sloganized in the language of current popular culture ;-p Doesn't he know that the popular media can only handle ideas expressible in proto-language, not ideas requiring nested phrase-structure syntax for their exposition? Some people never learn... ben g On 1/7/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > LETTER FROM SAM > January 6, 2006 > > Sam Harris writes to his mailing list: > > Dear Readers, > > Some of you may have noticed an article about me that is now running on > Alternet.org. The writer, John Gorenfeld, has taken a ninety minute > telephone interview, along with selective passages from my books, and made > of them a poisonous of mash of misquotation and paraphrasis for the purpose > of portraying me as an evil lunatic. While some level of innocent distortion > can be expected in print interviews, this case appears genuinely malicious. > > You can find Gorenfeld's account of me here > <http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/>. > Please feel free to post comments of > your own to the site. > > If you want to alert the management at Alternet of your displeasure, the > contact page can be found here > <http://alternet.org/about/contact.html>. > > As you will see, Gorenfeld distorts my views on torture, spiritual > experience, and the paranormal. For the record, I have summarized my views > on these subjects on my website > <http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/>. > > All the best, > Sam > > ------------ > > SAM HARRIS'S FAITH IN EASTERN SPIRITUALITY AND MUSLIM TORTURE > By John Gorenfeld > AlterNet > January 6, 2007 > > http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/ > > Sam Harris's books "The End Of Faith" and "Letter To A Christian Nation" > have established him as second only to the British biologist and author > Richard Dawkins in the ranks of famous 21st century atheists. The thrust of > Harris's best-sellers is that with the world so crazed by religion, it's > high time Americans stopped tolerating faith in the Rapture, the > Resurrection and anything else not grounded in evidence. Only trouble is, > our country's foremost promoter of "reason" is also supportive of ESP, > reincarnation and other unscientific concepts. Not all of it is harmless > yoga class hokum -- he's also a proponent of waterboarding and other forms > of torture. > > "We know [torture] works. It has worked. It's just a lie to say that it has > never worked," he says. "Accidentally torturing a few innocent people" is no > big deal next to bombing them, he continues. Why sweat it? > > I wanted to interview Harris to find out why a man sold to the American > public as the voice of scientific reason is promoting Hindu gods and mind > reading in his writing. But we spend much of our time discussing his call > for torture and his Buddhist perspectives on "compassionately killing the > bad guy." > > In 2004, Sam Harris' award-winning first book said society should demote > Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief to an embarrassment that "disgraces > anyone who would claim it," in doing so catapulting him from obscure UCLA > grad student -- the son of a Quaker father -- to national voice of atheism. > > "The End of Faith" may be the first book suitable for the Eastern Philosophy > shelf at Barnes & Noble that somehow incorporates both torture and New Age > piety, and offers pleas for clear scientific thinking alongside appeals to > "mysticism." The old-fashioned brand of atheist, like the late Carl Sagan, > argued eloquently against religion without supporting rituals and ghosts. > > Harris, however, argues that not just Western gods but philosophers are > "dwarfs" next to the Buddhas. And a Harris passage on psychics recommends > that curious readers spend time with the study "20 Cases Suggestive of > Reincarnation." > > Asked which cases are most suggestive of reincarnation, Harris admits to > being won over by accounts of "xenoglossy," in which people abruptly begin > speaking languages they don't know. Remember the girl in "The Exorcist"? > "When a kid starts speaking Bengali, we have no idea scientifically what's > going on," Harris tells me. It's hard to believe what I'm hearing from the > man the New York Times hails as atheism's "standard-bearer." > > Harris writes: "There seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of > psychic phenomena, much of which have been ignored by mainstream science." > On the phone he backpedals away from the claim. > > "I've received a little bit of grief for that," he says. "I certainly don't > say that I'm confident that psychic phenomena exist. I'm open-minded. I > would just like to see the data." > > To see the "data" yourself, "The End of Faith" points readers to a slew of > paranormal studies. > > One is Dr. Ian Stevenson's "Unlearned Language: New Studies in Xenoglossy." > The same author's reincarnation book presents for your consideration the > past life of Ravi Shankar, the sitar player who introduced the Beatles to > the Maharishi. He was born with a birthmark, it says, right where his past > self was knifed to death, aged two. > > Making the case for the "20 Cases" researcher, Harris sounds almost like > "Chronicles of Narnia" author C.S. Lewis, who said Jesus could only be a > liar or the Son of God. > > "Either he is a victim of truly elaborate fraud, or something interesting is > going on," Harris says. "Most scientists would say this doesn't happen. Most > would say that if it does happen, it's a case of fraud. ... It's hard to see > why anyone would be perpetrating a fraud -- everyone was made miserable by > this [xenoglossy] phenomenon." Pressed, he admits that some of the details > might after all be "fishy." > > Another book he lists is "The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of > Psychic Phenomena." "These are people who have spent a fair amount of time > looking at the data," Harris explains. The author, professor Dean Radin of > North California's Institute of Noetic Sciences, which is not accredited for > scientific peer review, proclaims: "Psi [mind power] has been shown to exist > in thousands of experiments." > > Harris has spent the past two years doing "full-time infidel" duty, in his > words. His second book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," takes the infidel > persona and runs with it, lashing back at Christians for their intolerance > toward his first book. > > In a versatile turn, however, Harris moonlights as inquisitor as well as > heretic. Without irony, he switches hats between chapters of "The End of > Faith." Chapter 3 finds him complaining that the medieval Church tortured > Jews over phony "blood libel" conspiracies. Then in chapter 6, "A Science of > Good & Evil," he devotes several pages to upholding the "judicial torture" > of Muslims, a practice for which "reasonable men and women" have come out. > > Torture then and now: The difference, he tells AlterNet, is that the > Inquisition "manufactured" crimes and forced Jews to confess "fictional > accomplices." > > But if the Iraq War hasn't been about "fictional accomplices," what has? > "There's nothing about my writing about torture that should suggest I > supported what was going on in Abu Ghraib," says Harris, who supported the > invasion but says it has become a "travesty." "We abused people who we know > had no intelligence value." > > While our soldiers are waging war on Islam in our detention centers, > according to Harris, our civilians must evolve past churchgoing to "modern > spiritual practice," he writes. "[M]ysticism is a rational enterprise," he > writes in his book, arguing it lets spiritualists "uncover genuine facts > about the world." And he tells AlterNet there are "social pressures" against > research into ESP. > > Society is remarkably free, however, in airing justifications for putting > Muslims to the thumbscrews. Harris's case for torture is this: since "we" > are OK with horrific collateral damage, "we" should have no qualms against > waterboarding, the lesser evil. "It's better than death." Better, in other > words, than bombing innocents. > > Then again, Sam Harris is not devoting his time in the media to call for an > end to bombing civilians. Attacking the sacred cow of airstrikes might have > been a real heresy, true to his Quaker roots but ensuring himself exile from > cable news. Instead the logic he lays out -- that Islam itself is our enemy > -- invites the reader to feel comfort at the deaths of its believers. He > writes: "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to > kill people for believing them." > > Playing his part in last year's War Over Christmas, Harris plays it safe > with "Letter to a Christian Nation." The book lumbers under a title so > heavy, you'd think Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote it from prison. While > keeping the Christian Nation on notice that Harris remains disdainful of > "wasting time" on Jesus, he now calls for something of an alliance with the > Right against Muslim Arabs and the "head-in-the-sand liberals" he denounced > in a recent editorial. "Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you, > dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the > living," he writes. > > Thus praising the hard Right for its "moral clarity" in the War on Terror, > Harris reserves much of his wrath for nonfundamentalist Christians, whom he > considers enablers of a virgin-birth sham. > > Fine, but the alternative to Jesus that Harris recommends in "The End of > Faith" is a menu of messiahs. There is Shankara, an avatar of the god Shiva > whose water pot could stop floods. There is the first Buddha and his > 8th-century successor Padmasambhava. After materializing on a lotus leaf at > age 8, Padmasambhava cast a spell that changed his friend into a tiger. > > "That is objectively stupider than the doctrine of the virgin birth," Harris > says in the interview, however. > > Like any religious moderate, he has picked and chosen what he likes from a > religion. On the one hand, there's an obligatory swipe in "The End of Faith" > against Pakistan and India for threatening to nuke each other over > "fanciful" religious disputes. The equal-offender pose doesn't slow Harris > from claiming the supremacy of Shankara and other oracles over Europe's > entire secular brain trust. For thousands of years, "personal transformation > [...] seems to have been thought too much to ask" of Western philosophers, > he complains petulantly, as if finding the entire Enlightenment short on > self-help tips. > > He likes that Buddhism will make you relax. And "dial in various mental > states," he says. In the classic case, he says, "you see various lights or > see bliss." And like a Scientologist cleric promising you the state of > Clear, evicting alien ghosts ruining your life, Harris expresses a faith > that his own style of pleasurable mental exploration ushers in good deeds. > Meditation, he says, will drive out whatever it is "that leads you to lie to > people or be intrinsically selfish." > > So it purges your sins? "You become free to notice how everyone else is > suffering," he says. Well, some more than others. > > We all need our illusions. But doesn't his, a mishmash of Buddhism and > "Time-Life Mysteries of The Unknown," weaken his case against Christians? > His answer is that Buddhism is a superior product for including the doctrine > of "non-dualism," or unity. "The teachings about self-transcending love in > Buddhism go on for miles," he says. "There's just a few lines in the Bible." > And hundreds in Dostoyevsky and the Confessions of St. Augustine, but never > mind: Harris's argument that "belief is action" rests on treating works like > the Old Testament not as complex cultural fables but something akin to your > TiVo instruction manual. > > Though it lapses in skepticism, Harris's work has won a surprising following > among nonmystics. Times science writer Natalie Angier felt "vindicated, > almost personally understood" reading it, she wrote in a review. > Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has practically adopted Harris as the > American Robin to his Batman in confronting unreason wherever it may lurk in > the hearts of men. "The End of Faith" should "replace the Gideon Bible in > every hotel room in the land," blurbs Dawkins. > > When that happens, Muslims will check into the Best Western and find a text > cheering their torture. > > Legendary for his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial, American attorney > Clarence Darrow wrote of his admiration for his forbearer Voltaire, the > original 18th-century renegade against the church. He thanked Voltaire for > dealing superstition a "mortal wound" -- and for an end to torture. "Among > the illustrious heroes who have banished this sort of cruelty from the > Western world, no other name will stand so high and shine so bright." > > And then among those who want to bring it back, there stands Sam Harris. > > "They're not talking," Harris is telling me, imagining a torture scenario > where the captives clam up, "quite amused at our unwillingness to make them > uncomfortable." > > No, it's not the sticky (and real) case of Jose Padilla, the detainee who > may have been reduced by his treatment to mind mush, possibly ruining his > trial. Instead he's sketching out a kind of Steven Seagal action movie > scenario in which we lasso Osama or his gang, maybe on the eve of a terror > plot. What to do? > > "We should say we don't do it," Harris says of torture. "We should say it's > reprehensible." And then do it anyway, he says. > > So there it is. In Harris's vision of future America, we will pursue > "personal transformation" and gaze into our personal "I-we" riddles, while > the distant gurgles of Arabs, terrified by the threat of drowning, will > drift into our Eastern-influenced sacred space, the government's press > releases no more than soothing Zen koans. > > ------------ > > RESPONSE TO CONTROVERSY > By Sam Harris > > http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/ > > A few of the subjects that I raised in The End of Faith continue to inspire > an unusual amount of malicious commentary, selective quotation, and > controversy. I've elaborated on these topics here: > > My position on torture: > > In The End of Faith, I argue that competing religious doctrines have divided > our world into separate moral communities, and that these divisions have > become a continuous source of human violence. My purpose in writing the book > was to offer a way of thinking about our world that would render certain > forms of conflict, quite literally, unthinkable. > > In one section of the book (pp. 192-199), I briefly discuss the ethics of > torture and collateral damage in times of war, arguing that collateral > damage is worse than torture across the board. Rather than appreciate just > how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, some readers have > mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of > torture. I do not. Nevertheless, there are certain extreme circumstances in > which I believe that torture may not only be ethically justifiable, but > ethically necessary. I am not alone in this. Liberal Senator Charles Schumer > has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find > out the location of a ticking time bomb. While rare, such "ticking-bomb" > scenarios actually do occur. As we move into an age of nuclear and > biological terrorism, it is in everyone's interest for men and women of > goodwill to determine what should be done when a prisoner clearly has > operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity, but won't otherwise talk > about it. > > My argument for the limited use of torture is essentially this: if you think > it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama > bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and > children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to torture a man > like Osama bin Laden (and risk torturing someone who just happens to look > like Osama bin Laden). It seems to me that however one compares the > practices of torturing high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping > bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, many of us > tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare, while considering it taboo to > even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to > point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make > travesties like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. Indeed, I > considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to have been patently > unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders to occur in > the last century of U.S. foreign policy. > > It is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws will create as > slippery a slope as many people imagine. We have a capital punishment > provision, for instance, but this has not led to our killing prisoners at > random because we can't control ourselves. While I am opposed to capital > punishment, I can readily admit that we are not suffering a total moral > chaos in our society because we execute about five people every month. It is > not immediately obvious that a rule about torture could not be applied with > equal restraint. > > I may be true, however, that any legal use of torture would have > unacceptable consequences. In light of this concern, the best strategy I > have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article, "The Dark > Art of Interrogation." Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal, and > maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason. But our > interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it > will be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which > you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator > finds himself in such a circumstance, and he breaks the law, there will not > be much of a will to prosecute him (and interrogators will know this). If he > breaks the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to jail for a very long time > (and interrogators will know this too). At the moment, this seems like the > most reasonable policy to me, given the realities of our world. > > While my discussion of torture spans only a few pages in a book devoted to > reducing the causes of religious violence, many readers have found this > discussion deeply unsettling. I have invited them, both publicly and > privately, to produce an ethical argument that takes into account the > realities of our world -- our daily acceptance of collateral damage, the > real possibility of nuclear terrorism, etc. -- and yet rules out the > practice of torture in all conceivable circumstances. No one, to my > knowledge, has done this. And yet, my critics continue to speak and write as > though a knock-down argument against torture in all circumstances is readily > available. I consider it to be one of the more dangerous ironies of liberal > discourse that merely discussing the possibility of torturing a man like > Osama bin Laden provokes more outrage than the maiming and murder of > innocent civilians ever does. Until someone actually points out what is > wrong with the "collateral damage argument" presented in The End of Faith. I > will continue to believe that my critics are just not thinking clearly about > the reality of human suffering. > > ............ > > My views on the paranormal - ESP, reincarnation, etc.: > > My position on the paranormal is this: While there have been many frauds in > the history of parapsychology, I believe that this field of study has been > unfairly stigmatized. If some experimental psychologists want to spend their > days studying telepathy, or the effects of prayer, I will be interested to > know what they find out. And if it is true that toddlers occasionally start > speaking in ancient languages (as Ian Stevenson alleges), I would like to > know about it. However, I have not spent any time attempting to authenticate > the data put forward in books like Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe or > Ian Stevenson's 20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. The fact that I have > not spent any time on this should suggest how worthy of my time I think such > a project would be. Still, I found these books interesting, and I cannot > categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the > claims of religious dogmatists. > > ............ > > My views on Eastern mysticism, Buddhism, etc.: > > My views on "mystical" or "spiritual" experience are extensively described > in The End of Faith and do not entail the acceptance of anything on faith. > There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a > result of engaging contemplative disciplines like meditation, and there is > no question that these experiences shed some light on the nature of the > human mind (any experience does, for that matter). What is highly > questionable are the metaphysical claims that people tend to make on the > basis of such experiences. I do not make any such claims. Nor do I support > the metaphysical claims of others. > > There are several neuroscience labs now studying the effects of meditation > on the brain. While I am not personally engaged in this research, I know > many of the scientists who are. This is now a fertile field of sober > inquiry, purposed toward understanding the possibilities of human well-being > better than we do at present. > > While I consider Buddhism almost unique among the world's religions as a > repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist. My > criticism of Buddhism as a faith has been published in essay form, to the > consternation of many Buddhists. It is available here: > > Killing the Buddha: > http://tinyurl.com/oy972 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From riel at surriel.com Mon Jan 8 04:59:55 2007 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:59:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Wikileaks needs you. In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0701071517n210dcd21l9afc7fb9aea8563@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070107145345.959532AF31A@suburbia.com.au> <710b78fc0701071517n210dcd21l9afc7fb9aea8563@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45A1CFCB.1010008@surriel.com> Emlyn wrote: > Anyone come across this? Yeah, I got spammed with it too. Worst of all, their site gives no indication of how anybody could actually help them out. I have a feeling they were just trolling for publicity, instead of asking for help. -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic. From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 07:28:58 2007 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:28:58 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] playing the long game Message-ID: <3642969c0701072328t1eea77e9x86c4a918d18f5131@mail.gmail.com> discussion point: helping me out with a little transhumanist life-choice logic; whether I should start playing "the long game" of life extension and self-improvement or give way to my tendencies towards nihilistic debauchery and self-destruction As yet another year passes, at the ripe old age of 31 I've yet to even _make_ a new years resolution, let alone _keep_ one. I hear the Singularity calling, and think about "living long enough to live forever", and think about the "brave new world" that is supposedly "just around the corner"... and aether forgive me but I just can't muster up the enthusiasm. I know my life choices are killing me; starting from a stark lack of exercise and regimented brain stimulus and education right through to my just-past holiday season deluges of group-sex, drug-abuse binges and wanton criminality and excess. I see this golden future dawning, with its oh-so-religion-like promises of living forever in a heaven-from-earth, and the rise and rise of technology and science and atheism and secular culture gladdens me like a gadget-freak strolling through Akihabara. And yet, for today, it brings me no joy. It's not that I foresee it as a lifeless, colourless dystopia where we're all doped to the gills on Modafinil and wired to the sockets with nanotech, adrift without anchor in a sea of our own hubris and inanity; I just look at the road between here and then with a distaste verging on vomit. If I exercise actively, read voluminously, eat healthily, study incessantly and focus without pause on the coming uplift then mayhap I'll be the froth on the tide able to symbiotically surf into posthumanity instead of being the shadowy kelpish bottom-dweller I find myself to be currently. And yet, I gag. Forgive me, oh immortal ones; for I love my imperfections so. While I'm no longer the impetuous child whose mugshot once-adorned a "60 minutes" wanted piece I'm also a far cry from being "born-again" into the transhumanist seminary. I want to contribute; I'm a believer, for what its worth. If my drug-addled mis-educated brain could finally manage to fire with effect for a short enough spasm to hack some code or manage some system for the benefit of the doubt some have almost mistakenly given me then I'd love to help them out with something more than platitudes. But even though my genetics are cursed with every killer affliction and disease there is, I just can't find the wherewithal to halt my slide towards the early death that has befallen almost all of my (many) immediate ancestors. I'm the mongrel pup of flawed offspring from generations of naught consequence; perhaps an ignominious demise is all that could have ever been foreseen for such a scurrilous cur. I'm constantly skirting incarceration and hospitalization while dancing my merry jig of madness, and yet no matter how dark and foul the long nights it produces I never tire of the taste of humanity it offers, no matter how bitter; the rich taste of a life-badly-lived is so rewarding a teat that the dry offering of a bourgeois-behaved good-citizen living a life-well-lived for the promises of the after-earth seems like such a soured haggis. And maybe thats the problem; the current path-to-posthumanity tastes like the low-fat and carb-free awfulness that so symbolizes all thats wrong about "better living through chemistry". From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 15:55:53 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:55:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Easter Island not a human-created disaster? In-Reply-To: <20070107125231.GK6974@leitl.org> References: <20070107125231.GK6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60701080755g89baa2di9dff031d2bfe49cc@mail.gmail.com> On 1/7/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Of course rats spread via the human ships. Perturbing ecological > systems by introducing alien species (rats, goats, etc) is only a > yet another mechanism by which humans alter existing ecosystems, > typically to their own disadvantage. ### No Eugen, humans typically gain advantage by introducing alien species (wheat, potatoes, cattle, etc.) and changing ecosystems. The occasional plague of rats or snakes is just a trifle compared to the benefits of alien species. ----------------------------------------------- > > Assuming you're correct in this particular case, do you think > all the other cases in 'Collapse' are similiarly dubious or bogus? ### Yes, societal collapse due to natural, extrinsic causes is very uncommon. Rafal From listsb at infinitefaculty.org Mon Jan 8 16:31:59 2007 From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian M. Delaney) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:31:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> References: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> Message-ID: <45A271FF.3080306@infinitefaculty.org> 2007-01-07 06:26 skrev Brett Paatsch: >> From: "Mike Dougherty" >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] yo extropes >> To: "ExI chat list" >> Message-ID: >> <62c14240701051324j396719fau6b0fca6878152b5c at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> On 1/5/07, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>> happy new year to ya's (even you'se american ones who might not >>> be so fully deserving of it) >>> >> I would have let this go completely if I were actually offended by it, >> but I'm curious what makes you say something like that? >> >> Seriously, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just want to better >> understand your worldview. > > G'day Mike. > > You ask a fair question courteously but I don't know you. You seem to > be a newcomer to the list. Can you give me a brief introduction to > yourself first? - that would help me to help you to understand my > "worldview". > > Brett Hi Brett, Could I ask a narrower question -- not about your worldview (I understand how that might elicit a counter-question) -- but just a simple interpretive question? In what sense might Americans not be so fully deserving of a Happy New Year greeting? Thanks, and Happy New Year! Brian -- For the new year. -- I still live, I still think: I still have to live, for I still have to think. Sum, ergo cogito: cogito, ergo sum. -Nietzsche. From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 8 17:00:11 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:00:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <45A271FF.3080306@infinitefaculty.org> References: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> <45A271FF.3080306@infinitefaculty.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070108105454.024fea58@satx.rr.com> > > >> On 1/5/07, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >>> happy new year to ya's (even you'se american ones who might not > >>> be so fully deserving of it) > >In what sense might Americans not be so fully deserving of a Happy New >Year greeting? This to-and-fro is going to lead straight into a cycle of what amount to retaliatory trolling, isn't it? For example, I can imagine Brett might reply briefly with, say, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ . But that sort of discussion never seems to get anywhere useful on this list, and ends up poisoning the well for weeks. (I know, it might be argued that I've just done exactly that.) Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 17:38:28 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:38:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Easter Island not a human-created disaster? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60701080755g89baa2di9dff031d2bfe49cc@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070107125231.GK6974@leitl.org> <7641ddc60701080755g89baa2di9dff031d2bfe49cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/8/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### No Eugen, humans typically gain advantage by introducing alien > species (wheat, potatoes, cattle, etc.) and changing ecosystems. > > The occasional plague of rats or snakes is just a trifle compared to > the benefits of alien species. > ----------------------------------------------- I am not an archaeologist. But Terry Hunt, who wrote the report I linked to, certainly is. Bio: Terry L. Hunt is a professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where he has taught since 1988. He earned his master's degree in anthropology from the University of Auckland in New Zealand and his Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Washington. Hunt has been conducting archaeological field research in the Pacific Islands for nearly 30 years, and he is currently director of the University of Hawaii Rapa Nui Archaeological Field School. His report claims that the settlers of Easter Island deliberately brought chickens and the Polynesian rat with them as a food source. The Polynesian rat (which his report blames for much of the deforestation on Easter Island and other pacific islands) is now extinct on Easter Island in the face of competition from rat species introduced by Europeans. > > ### Yes, societal collapse due to natural, extrinsic causes is very uncommon. > Jared Diamond made Easter Island the main plank in his book about collapsing societies. So if it is removed, then his case is certainly much weaker. The effect of climate changes (drought, floods, plagues, disease, etc.) on early human societies is a hidden history that is only now gradually being revealed. Ancient history recorded wars, revolutions, invasions, as written by the victors, recording their achievements. But they rarely commented on the environmental factors that often drove people to these desperate measures, or weakened the losing opponents in the war. In some cases the society just disappeared.. BillK From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 06:12:59 2007 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:12:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Edge Question 2007: What are you optimistic about? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <544037.13122.qm@web32810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, There are some really wonderful ideas here, from several of the most brilliant thinkers and doers in the world:-) Enjoy... http://edge.org/q2007 "Sergio M.L. Tarrero" wrote: Friends, The 2007 Edge.org question is out. "What are you optimistic about?" Time to have some fun reading some of the responses! http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html If you don?t have much time... I?ve taken the time to look carefully at most entries and, in case this helps you, these are my recommendations, in order of appearance, page after page. I?ve placed asterisks next to my very favorite ones, and some initials to give guidance about themes on some of them. H+ = Transhumanism NBIC = NanoBioInfoCogno convergence T = Transparency E = Energy C = Climate M = Morality/Ethics/Religion ED = Education P = Physics 1: Dan Dennett* (M), Alun Anderson (E), Mark Hauser (M), Steven Pinker* (M) 2: Michael Shermer* (M), Gerald Holton* (NBIC), Andrew Brown* (M) 3: Haim Harari*, Carlo Rovelli, Juan Enr?quez 4: Peter Schwartz (H+), Jerry Adler 5: Rebecca Goldstein* (M, ED), Leo Chalupa (H+), Sam Harris* (M), Ray Kurzweil* (E, H+), Douglas Rushkoff 6: Lisa Randall, Freeman Dyson, Andrian Kreye, David Gelenter, James Geary (E), Kai Krause (very long, but OK) 7: George Church (H+), Chris Dibona (T), Max Tegmark* (H+) 8: Judith Rich Harris (E), Robert Shapiro (long, but interesting), Tor Norretranders (C), Adam Bly, Marco Iacoboni* (M) 9: Craig Venter, Rodney Brooks*, Anton Zeilinger, Diane Halpern* (M), Gloria Origgi 10: Paul Saffo, Dan Sperber, Gary Marcus (ED), Paul Davies 11: David Dalrymple* (ED), Gregory Benford* (C), Stephen Schneider (C), Karl Sabbagh, Chris Anderson, Nicholas Humphrey* 12: Richard Dawkins*, Jaron Lanier, Jason McCabe Calacanis, Andy Clark (H+) 13: Brian Eno*, Marcelo Gleiser (M), Alex Pentland, David Bodanis 14: Frank Wilczek (P), Leon Lederman* (ED), Jill Neimark (H+), Larry Sanger, Barry Smith 15: Martin Rees*, Vittorio Bo, Paul Steinhardt (P), Robert Sapolsky (M) 16: Oliver Morton (E), John McCarthy, Marvin Misky* (H+) Incidentally, as I?ve told some of you already, I came upon the idea Gregory Benford (page 11) and his colleagues are working on for manipulating global temperature independently about a year ago, after hearing what happened on the days following 9/11, when the temperature in the US raised due to the lack of planes in the sky. My idea had to do with using remotely controlled swarms of flying (or floating) micro or nano robots, more than just particles, to reflect sunlight when and where needed. I guess that?d be more expensive than Benford?s plan (though maybe not!) but much more versatile, controllable, and permanent of a solution. Enjoy. Sergio M.L. Tarrero Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: Sam Harris Fecha: 1 de enero de 2007 07:36:25 GMT+01:00 Para: sergiomartinez at mac.com Asunto: Edge Question 2007 Responder a: author at samharris.org Edge Question for 2007 Edge.org has posted its annual Question: What Are You Optimistic About? You can read Sam's answer (along with those of other Edge contibutors) here: Edge email: author at samharris.org web: http://www.samharris.org/ Sam Harris | www.samharris.org | New York | NY | 10021 La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From g.vatinno at agora.it Mon Jan 8 16:44:29 2007 From: g.vatinno at agora.it (g.vatinno at agora.it) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:44:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [extropy-chat] destructive action against transhumanism in Italy by Riccardo Campa Message-ID: <48847.212.141.38.253.1168274669.squirrel@webmail.agora.it> Dear Chair, I would like to inform you about the behaviour that Riccardo Campa is leading against me and other member of the Italian Transhumanist Group. I?m a member of WTA and I served the WTA-Italy for 2 years as Scientific Director promoting the transhumanism in the press and political arena (i.e. http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/1226/). I?m suddenly excluded from the board for political reasons and I?m insulted by Campa. Moreover, he don?t give me, actually, the possibility to explain my point of view in the mailing list The action of Riccardo Campa is very dangerous for Italian transhumanism because he leads the group in an authoritarian way and he is breaking the unity of the association. Moreover, the action of Campa should be against the "extropian" component of WTA and this is non good for the unity of the association. I report that he never made elections in Italy. So I asked the President of WTA to stop the destabilizing action of Riccardo Campa about the grow of transhumanism in Italy. Regards, Giuseppe Vatinno -- Dott. Giuseppe Vatinno Responsabile Nazionale Energia di Italia dei Valori Coordinamento Gruppo programmatico Energia dell'Unione Coordinatore Gruppo "Energia e Cambiamenti Climatici" Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare www.giuseppevatinno.it cell.: 338-7275363 From listsb at infinitefaculty.org Mon Jan 8 17:58:15 2007 From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian M. Delaney) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:58:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070108105454.024fea58@satx.rr.com> References: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> <45A271FF.3080306@infinitefaculty.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070108105454.024fea58@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45A28637.8020008@infinitefaculty.org> 2007-01-08 09:04 skrev Damien Broderick: >>>> On 1/5/07, Brett Paatsch wrote: >>>>> happy new year to ya's (even you'se american ones who might not >>>>> be so fully deserving of it) >> In what sense might Americans not be so fully deserving of a Happy New >> Year greeting? > > This to-and-fro is going to lead straight into a cycle of what amount > to retaliatory trolling, isn't it? For example, I can imagine Brett > might reply briefly with, say, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ . But > that sort of discussion never seems to get anywhere useful on this > list, and ends up poisoning the well for weeks. (I know, it might be > argued that I've just done exactly that.) Apologies, I honestly wasn't sure what Brett was thinking, and sincerely wanted to know why he thought Americans might not be so fully deserving of a Happy New Year greeting (I could have made guesses, but didn't want to). Wasn't thinking that well-poisoning was a risk, but you know the list far better than I do. -Brian From jonkc at att.net Mon Jan 8 18:12:56 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:12:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> Me: >>It's not just a good idea for there to be a 50% probability of this atom >>decaying in the next hour, it's THE LAW. "Benjamin Goertzel" > That is silly ... it is not a "law" legislated by some legislative > body True, it's just the way the universe works, rather like the LAW of gravity. > scientific statements (like "this atom will decay in the next hour with > 50% probability") are not even **defined** outside of the language of some > particular scientific research programme. This leads to the notion of > "incommensurability" between rival research programmes, > and the need to compare rival programmes via criteria like > productivity and generativity rather than comparison to > "objective truth". Which is how science has worked in reality > -- not via "objective truth" being used to decide between > research programmes... Presumably the above means something, but if you put a gun to my head I couldn't tell you what. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 8 18:35:52 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:35:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> On 1/8/07, John K Clark wrote: > Me: > >>It's not just a good idea for there to be a 50% probability of this atom > >>decaying in the next hour, it's THE LAW. > > "Benjamin Goertzel" > > > That is silly ... it is not a "law" legislated by some legislative > > body > > True, it's just the way the universe works, rather like the LAW of gravity. It is the way our part of the universe has apparently worked for a period of time. It's a very useful explanatory hypothesis within this context. > > scientific statements (like "this atom will decay in the next hour with > > 50% probability") are not even **defined** outside of the language of some > > particular scientific research programme. This leads to the notion of > > "incommensurability" between rival research programmes, > > and the need to compare rival programmes via criteria like > > productivity and generativity rather than comparison to > > "objective truth". Which is how science has worked in reality > > -- not via "objective truth" being used to decide between > > research programmes... > > Presumably the above means something, but if you put a gun to my head I > couldn't tell you what. Well, if you did some background reading in the philosophy of science it would make more sense to you. Philosophy of science has its jargon like any other discipline, and as usual, replacing the jargon with everyday words buys apparent comprehensibility at the cost of precision. The point is that assessing the truth or falsehood of a theoretical scientific statement is not a simple thing. Criteria for validation vary from one scientific approach to another, e.g. cultural norms for throwing out outliers and defining contexts of applicability. Scientific statements are not laws nor truths but are hypotheses expressed in the context of a particular culture and vocabulary. But, approximately explaining complex matters in a few sentences in an email is difficult enough if the recipient is intuitively agreeable. Doing so when the recipient has a radically different intuitive perspective is probably useless. If you want to understand my perspective on these issues, read me essay on philosophy of science which I reference earlier in this thread. -- BenG From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 8 18:34:49 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:34:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Signaling and Social Markers In-Reply-To: <20061228193057.83669.qmail@web37211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anna Taylor wrote: > --- Jef Allbright wrote: >> So, maybe there's an analogy between the clothing style >> one presents and the communication style one presents. >> For me they seem very different in terms of values, but >> I can see that they each may be simply a layer over the self. > > I was wondering why "simply a layer over the self"? > I would have thought it would be simply a layer aside of the self. > > A clothing style is a form of self communication when > you are wearing what you personaly choose to wear. > Other times, it is simply standardized materials that > represent norms and behaviors such as a police > uniforms,surplices or business suits. > > Do you believe that with such materials that a person can be > influenced and changed simply due to what they are wearing? Anna, I completely agree with what you're saying here. I was trying to make essentially the same two points. (1) In my original reply to Lee's post on clothing styles, I gave examples of how I wore different styles of clothing during different phases of my life, mainly in order to be effective in the particular geo-social environment. My point was similar to yours; that the clothing was not intended to cover the self (didn't represent my values.) (2) I tried to acknowledge Lee's point that he had *not* changed his clothing style and generally intends not to change it in the future, as he seems to feel that it just wouldn't be him. My point there (which you quoted above) was that maybe an analogy *could* be made in the sense that in some cases clothing does represent one's core values. I confess that if the discussion had proceeded, I would have pointed out the apparent correlation between Lee's concept of identity as something that can and should be preserved, and my concept of identity as agency representing an entity that can't be preserved but should and must grow. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 8 18:46:50 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:46:50 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <45A28637.8020008@infinitefaculty.org> References: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> <45A271FF.3080306@infinitefaculty.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070108105454.024fea58@satx.rr.com> <45A28637.8020008@infinitefaculty.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070108123853.0266fe58@satx.rr.com> At 09:58 AM 1/8/2007 -0800, Brian wrote: >I honestly wasn't sure what Brett was thinking, and sincerely >wanted to know why he thought Americans might not be so fully deserving >of a Happy New Year greeting (I could have made guesses, but didn't want >to). Well, I'm also guessing, of course, but as a fellow Aussie I figured I might make an informed guess at his intention. And yes, Australia also has troops in Iraq, at the behest of a brown-nosing Prime Minister, but currently the regard of the majority of Aussies for the govt is apparently pretty low. Moreover, I didn't read Brett's wry remark as directed at *all* Yanks, but just at those who were not fully deserving etc. Aussies are mostly well-disposed toward Americans (I married one and moved here!) but we have an odd blend of anti-authoritarianism and shrugging acceptance of the status quo that baffles even our own pundits. Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 8 19:02:23 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:02:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John K Clark wrote: >>> It's not just a good idea for there to be >>> a 50% probability of this atom decaying in >>> the next hour, it's THE LAW. > > "Benjamin Goertzel" > >> That is silly ... it is not a "law" legislated >> by some legislative body > True, it's just the way the universe works, rather like the > LAW of gravity. > >> scientific statements (like "this atom will decay >> in the next hour with 50% probability") are not even >> **defined** outside of the language of some particular >> scientific research programme. >> This leads to the notion of "incommensurability" >> between rival research programmes, and the need to >> compare rival programmes via criteria like >> productivity and generativity rather than comparison >> to "objective truth". Which is how science has worked >> in reality -- not via "objective truth" being used to >> decide between research programmes... > > Presumably the above means something, but if you put a gun to > my head I couldn't tell you what. John, the point here is that we can derive general principles from our observations of the way the universe works, even though it has been traditional for some people to (misleadingly) label these as "laws", as if they were absolutely decreed, rather than derived via a subjective process of observation and sense-making refinement. The very high statistical regularity of "random" radioactive decay, and the very high regularity of what we call gravity leads to people thinking of them in absolute terms, but these concepts are still less than objective. Take gravity as perhaps the most common case of physical "law". These days do we interpret this "law" as did Aristotle, who knew that different substances had different tendencies to fall toward earth, or as did Newton and other scientists who for a long time knew that gravity acted as an attraction between bodies following a strict inverse square law, or as Einstein revealed that gravity is best modeled as a curvature in space, or do we incorporate the newer speculations about effects on gravity due to intense magnetic fields and/or "dark matter" or ...? Due to our status as subjective agents, our understanding of the world and the interactions of its parts can only approach, but never attain, objectivity. - Jef From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 19:11:25 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:11:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070108105454.024fea58@satx.rr.com> References: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> <45A271FF.3080306@infinitefaculty.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070108105454.024fea58@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701081111x3a417a82ta849232f3b5f3a86@mail.gmail.com> On 1/8/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > This to-and-fro is going to lead straight into a cycle of what amount > to retaliatory trolling, isn't it? For example, I can imagine Brett > might reply briefly with, say, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ . But > that sort of discussion never seems to get anywhere useful on this > list, and ends up poisoning the well for weeks. (I know, it might be > argued that I've just done exactly that.) no retaliatory anything required. the original seemed to be a curious offhand remark; I asked about it to find out what makes an extropian say such a thing.. perhaps I should have done so off-list. To avoid well poisoning (and trolling) I gladly retract the question. From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 8 18:37:49 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:37:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes In-Reply-To: <45A28637.8020008@infinitefaculty.org> References: <008e01c73267$48fd5250$52e98f9b@homepc> <45A271FF.3080306@infinitefaculty.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070108105454.024fea58@satx.rr.com> <45A28637.8020008@infinitefaculty.org> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070108122521.04770a58@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:58 AM 1/8/2007, Brian wrote: >2007-01-08 09:04 skrev Damien Broderick: > >>>> On 1/5/07, Brett Paatsch wrote: > >>>>> happy new year to ya's (even you'se american ones who might not > >>>>> be so fully deserving of it) > >> In what sense might Americans not be so fully deserving of a Happy New > >> Year greeting? > > > > This to-and-fro is going to lead straight into a cycle of what amount > > to retaliatory trolling, isn't it? For example, I can imagine Brett > > might reply briefly with, say, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ . But > > that sort of discussion never seems to get anywhere useful on this > > list, and ends up poisoning the well for weeks. (I know, it might be > > argued that I've just done exactly that.) > > >Apologies, I honestly wasn't sure what Brett was thinking, and sincerely >wanted to know why he thought Americans might not be so fully deserving >of a Happy New Year greeting (I could have made guesses, but didn't want >to). Wasn't thinking that well-poisoning was a risk, but you know the >list far better than I do. I was take a little aback I support peace and non-coercive negotiations. But I can certainly understand why it is strange to celebrate a festive, joyous new years when people are dying at the hands of American troops. And with this said, frankly it is less consequence if is someone is sitting on the turf of America or another continent - we are the world and maybe all of the world's citizens could have pronounced a salvo to the past, present and future to stop needless killings and solve problems without invasion, killings, and dominance over others. 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 eugen at leitl.org Mon Jan 8 19:48:52 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:48:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Easter Island not a human-created disaster? In-Reply-To: References: <20070107125231.GK6974@leitl.org> <7641ddc60701080755g89baa2di9dff031d2bfe49cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070108194852.GS6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 05:38:28PM +0000, BillK wrote: > I am not an archaeologist. Archaeology is probably one of the sciences most open to the layman. (And in a pinch, you can always hit the bibliography, descending to primary literature, if it needs to be). > But Terry Hunt, who wrote the report I linked to, certainly is. > Bio: > Terry L. Hunt is a professor in the Department of Anthropology at the > University of Hawaii at Manoa, where he has taught since 1988. He > earned his master's degree in anthropology from the University of > Auckland in New Zealand and his Ph.D. in anthropology from the > University of Washington. Hunt has been conducting archaeological > field research in the Pacific Islands for nearly 30 years, and he is > currently director of the University of Hawaii Rapa Nui Archaeological > Field School. I'm rather immune to ipse dixits. > His report claims that the settlers of Easter Island deliberately > brought chickens and the Polynesian rat with them as a food source. > The Polynesian rat (which his report blames for much of the > deforestation on Easter Island and other pacific islands) is now > extinct on Easter Island in the face of competition from rat species > introduced by Europeans. You're not actually disagreeing with Diamond. He doesn't bin natives and Europeans differently. His main harp chords on ability of human socities to sustainably manage their environments, or the failure thereof. Introducing potentially invasive species willy-nilly to a specific ecology that happens to be fragile is a cardinal mistake, which you frequently pay by a population crash. > > > > > ### Yes, societal collapse due to natural, extrinsic causes is very uncommon. > > > > > Jared Diamond made Easter Island the main plank in his book about > collapsing societies. So if it is removed, then his case is certainly > much weaker. You're not giving Diamond justice. He wrote several books, most notably "The Third Chimpanzee", "Guns, Germs and Steel" and "Collapse". The first book about how we became human, and contains a discussion in how we're similiar and how we're different from being just a third subspecies of Pan. The second book tries to explain how Europeans conquered the rest of the world instead of the other way round (very roughly, I've only dipped in the book yet due to lack of time). "Collapse" (which is subtitled "How socities choose to fail or *succeed*" (emphasis mine)). It covers contemporary Montana, Easter Island, Pitcairn and Henderson Islands, Anasazis, Mayas, Vikings, Norse Greenland, New Guinea, Japan, Rwanda, The Dominican Republic and Haiti, China, Australia. Quite a lot for a book of only 560 pages. So, no, the Easter Island is not his "main plank", and he's not claiming what you say he does. > The effect of climate changes (drought, floods, plagues, disease, > etc.) on early human societies is a hidden history that is only now Which happens to be one of the main points of Collapse, incidentally. > gradually being revealed. Ancient history recorded wars, revolutions, > invasions, as written by the victors, recording their achievements. > But they rarely commented on the environmental factors that often > drove people to these desperate measures, or weakened the losing > opponents in the war. Which also happens to be one the main points. > In some cases the society just disappeared.. Nothing ever "just disappears". There are plenty of traces, and always very good reasons why some socities collapse, and some don't. The book is worth reading for the lessons to us current alone. -- 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 Mon Jan 8 20:02:33 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:02:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Easter Island not a human-created disaster? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60701080755g89baa2di9dff031d2bfe49cc@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070107125231.GK6974@leitl.org> <7641ddc60701080755g89baa2di9dff031d2bfe49cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070108200233.GT6974@leitl.org> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:55:53AM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### No Eugen, humans typically gain advantage by introducing alien > species (wheat, potatoes, cattle, etc.) and changing ecosystems. For most cases, you're correct. However, some specific fragile ecosystems do not tolerate introduction of new species and human meddling (the extinct megafauna of the Americas is an illustration of the latter). Also, we haven't yet seen the end of the experiment. In absence of dramatic breakthroughs (autopoietic molecular systems) what we're doing now is not very sustainable, not just through our numbers. Our current primitive technology gives us leverage do do more damage/ human unit, and this trend is getting worse as such tools spread further. So we need to make a series of concerted breakthroughs, soon, and this is our challenge. > The occasional plague of rats or snakes is just a trifle compared to > the benefits of alien species. > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > Assuming you're correct in this particular case, do you think > > all the other cases in 'Collapse' are similiarly dubious or bogus? > > ### Yes, societal collapse due to natural, extrinsic causes is very uncommon. You're channelling Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Socities, but Diamond gives plenty of examples where Tainter was empirically very wrong. Have you read "Collapse"? If you haven't, you should. -- 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 19:46:21 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:46:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Ben and Jef on this question of what are these so-called "laws" of science. But somehow I think John does not really disagree. I think he knows full well that physical laws are provisional only. A better way to ask this question, I think, would be something like, "Is it or is it not the goal of science to discover the ultimate and true laws of the universe, which really do exist?" Those who answer yes would be, I think, objectivists and subscribers to the correspondence theory of truth. Those who answer no would be subjectivists and subscribers to the coherence theory of truth. As for me, I confess a modest bias in the direction of objectivism and the correspondence theory. -gts From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Mon Jan 8 21:16:38 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 16:16:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] yo extropes Message-ID: <380-22007118211638368@M2W014.mail2web.com> oops - I was take[n] a little aback [because] I support ... sorry - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From estropico at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 22:03:03 2007 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:03:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExtroBritannia in Cambridge Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90701081403u63ff58b2gdddabfc8fdc80c4c@mail.gmail.com> An informal ExtroBritannia get together will take place next Saturday (13th Jan 07) at the 'Live and Let Live' Pub near the railway station starting at 12:00 noon until whenever the majority of people have departed. If it is your first time at an ExtroBritannia get together, look for a copy of "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition" being displayed at our table. The 'Live and Let Live' Pub: http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?pc=cb12ea --- 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 pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 22:21:50 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:21:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Easter Island not a human-created disaster? In-Reply-To: <20070108194852.GS6974@leitl.org> References: <20070107125231.GK6974@leitl.org> <7641ddc60701080755g89baa2di9dff031d2bfe49cc@mail.gmail.com> <20070108194852.GS6974@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 1/8/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > You're not actually disagreeing with Diamond. He doesn't bin > natives and Europeans differently. His main harp chords on ability > of human socities to sustainably manage their environments, or > the failure thereof. Introducing potentially invasive species > willy-nilly to a specific ecology that happens to be fragile is > a cardinal mistake, which you frequently pay by a population crash. > Perhaps it is just a difference of emphasis, but it doesn't look that way to me. Diamond seems to claim that a large society destroyed their ecology and killed most of the population off in civil wars over the last remnants of food. Hunt claims that a much smaller society, living within their changing environment, survived fairly well until genocide from European invaders (via disease, slave-trading and pillaging) destroyed them. The Easter Islanders survived OK until the Europeans arrived in 1772 and estimated the population at 2,000 to 3,000. The Stone Heads were still standing and probably being worked on in the quarries at that time. Before 1772 the island population might never have been much more than 3,000 - nobody knows. The volcanic island is only 64 sq miles in total area (not all suitable for farming). But their fate was much like the Incas, the Aztec, the American Indians, the native Africans, the Bushmen...... The list is long. The Easter Islanders were worse off because their numbers were much smaller and the European attacks, smallpox and deportations virtually destroyed them. There were only 110 natives left in 1877, 100 years after the first European contact in 1772, and all the Stone Heads had been toppled. BillK From jonkc at att.net Mon Jan 8 22:58:12 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:58:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com><003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> Benjamin Goertzel Wrote: > if you did some background reading in the philosophy of science it would > make more sense to you Probably, but I doubt it would be worth my time. If I was able to translate your remarks into English I have a very very strong hunch it would be one of 2 things: 1) True but trivially obvious. 2) Wrong. But I'm not just picking on you, I think that is largely the case for all philosophers of science. The thing is, if they were really onto something, if they really did have a better understanding of the scientific method then mere scientists you'd think they would have made major contributions to our understanding of how the universe works just like those silly scientists have. But I can't think of a single philosopher of science that has done that. Isn't that strange? They remind me a little of movie critics who go on and on why a movie is terrible but are incapable themselves of making even a crappy movie. > Philosophy of science has its jargon like any other discipline, and as > usual, replacing the jargon with everyday words buys apparent > comprehensibility at the cost of precision. That is true for real science, but in social science and philosophy jargon has a quite different purpose, to conceal the fact that what you are trying to say is so obvious it's a downright clich? or it's just plain stupid. I'm not saying philosophy is as bad as physiology in that regard, but it's still pretty damn bad. > The point is that assessing the truth or falsehood of a theoretical > scientific statement is not a simple thing. Excellent, you did not use one word of jargon and yet your sentence was clear precise and true. Unfortunately it is also obvious. > Criteria for validation vary from one scientific approach to another, e.g. > cultural norms So in some cultures this bridge will collapse if I march over it, and in other cultures it won't. Jef Allbright Wrote: > it has been traditional for some people to (misleadingly) label these as > "laws", as if they were absolutely decreed, rather than derived via a > subjective process of observation and sense-making refinement. Jef, if everything is subjective then nothing is subjective, for something to be meaningful you need contrast. Suppose that everything that exists and everything that does not exist, everything you can imagine and everything you can't imagine has the property of being bloxinated. Do you think the word "bloxinated" is likely to be useful to you, can you imagine any reason to use it in a sentence? I can't. > The very high statistical regularity of "random" radioactive decay My use of quotation marks in "this" sentence is as foolish as your use of quotation marks above. Let me ask you something, can you give me a logical reason why every event must have a cause? I can't. >Newton and other scientists who for a long time knew that gravity acted as >an attraction between bodies following a strict inverse square law, or as >Einstein revealed that gravity is best modeled as a curvature in space, or >do we incorporate the newer speculations about effects on gravity due to >intense magnetic fields and/or "dark matter" or ...? I don't get it, are philosophers of science of science incapable of understanding the concept of asemtopes or limits? I thought the same Newton you talked about explained that pretty damn well back in 1687 when he invented the calculus. To put it simply we're getting better. John K Clark From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 00:50:35 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:50:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7641ddc60701081650n4cdbfd89qcebb9721b9e43c2c@mail.gmail.com> On 1/8/07, gts wrote: > > Those who answer yes would be, I think, objectivists and subscribers to > the correspondence theory of truth. Those who answer no would be > subjectivists and subscribers to the coherence theory of truth. > > As for me, I confess a modest bias in the direction of objectivism and the > correspondence theory. > ### Me too, kind of. Correspondence, not coherence, is what makes physical truth true, even if it's derivation is dependent on practice, which makes me a bit of a pragmatist. But then coherence is the meat of mathematics and logic, so mathematical truth has a different flavor to it. Perhaps the term "goulash theory of truth" might be applicable. I hope we can agree that the one theory of truth that we all honest folks here hate heartily is the social constructivist theory. Down with Marx, Vico and pomos! Rafal From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 9 01:06:53 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:06:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60701081650n4cdbfd89qcebb9721b9e43c2c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60701081650n4cdbfd89qcebb9721b9e43c2c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070108190603.02229790@satx.rr.com> At 07:50 PM 1/8/2007 -0500, Rafal wrote: >I hope we can agree that the one theory of truth that we all honest >folks here hate heartily is the social constructivist theory. Certainly not. Only its usual tabloid parody. Damien Broderick From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 9 01:48:01 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:48:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > > if you did some background reading in the philosophy of science it would > > make more sense to you > > Probably, but I doubt it would be worth my time. If I was able to translate > your remarks into English I have a very very strong hunch it would be one of > 2 things: > > 1) True but trivially obvious. > > 2) Wrong. Well, it is simply BS that all of "philosophy of science" ever written is either trivially obvious, or wrong. Let me ask you this: How would you tell the story of the "disproving" of classical gravitation theory and its replacement by Einsteinian gravitation? I will be curious to compare your story with the analyses of Lakatos and other historians/philosophers of science, whose work you denigrate as "obvious or wrong" **without even being familiar with it**. > But I'm not just picking on you, I think that is largely the case for all > philosophers of science. The thing is, if they were really onto something, > if they really did have a better understanding of the scientific method then > mere scientists you'd think they would have made major contributions to our > understanding of how the universe works just like those silly scientists > have. But I can't think of a single philosopher of science that has done > that. Isn't that strange? They remind me a little of movie critics who > go on and on why a movie is terrible but are incapable themselves of > making even a crappy movie. 1) I don't know why you view philosophy of science as being about arguing that scientists are "silly"? That may be the perspective of some philosophers of science, but only a small minority. 2) Your argument does not hold up at all, anyway. To riff on your "movie critic" analogy ... For instance, there may be a physicist who understands more about the physics of golf than Tiger Woods, yet cannot play golf as well as Tiger Woods. Declarative knowledge about science [or golf[ does not necessarily translate into procedural ability to do science [or golf] (to use some lingo from cog sci). 3) I am primarily a scientist, not a philosopher of science, personally. I became interested in philosophy of science out of a genuine interest in understanding the enterprise of science better. 4) Note that up until the last century or so, many eminent scientists **were** also philosophers of science. The rigid division between science and philosophy is a relatively recent invention, and one with plusses and minuses. > > Philosophy of science has its jargon like any other discipline, and as > > usual, replacing the jargon with everyday words buys apparent > > comprehensibility at the cost of precision. > > That is true for real science, but in social science and philosophy jargon > has a quite different purpose, to conceal the fact that what you are trying > to say is so obvious it's a downright clich? or it's just plain stupid. Actually, the main reason for specialized vocabulary in philosophy is the desire for precise expression. I suppose that if you take a precise statement in philosophy and translate it crudely into imprecise English, sometimes you may come up with a cliche'. So what. Even if so, that doesn't prove that the precise philosophical formulation was a cliche'. > > The point is that assessing the truth or falsehood of a theoretical > > scientific statement is not a simple thing. > > Excellent, you did not use one word of jargon and yet your sentence was > clear precise and true. Unfortunately it is also obvious. Yes, that statement was obvious. What some philosophers of science have done is to probe into the particular nature of the assessment of truth or falsehood of scientific statements. Because their conclusions have NOT been so simple and obvious, they are not so easy to concisely describe in conversational English. > > Criteria for validation vary from one scientific approach to another, e.g. > > cultural norms > > So in some cultures this bridge will collapse if I march over it, and in > other cultures it won't. Consider the mass of the top quark, for example. This is calculated by averaging the mass estimates obtained thru various observations of the top quark. However, there is some artfulness and judgment involved in defining which empirical observations are to be considered actual observations of the top quark, versus which are to be considered noise generated by the experimental equipment. It turns out that some physicists who think the top quark has a different mass than the mainstream of physics -- also would like to count some additional observations as top quark observations rather than noise, relative to what the mainstream would like. So, the "empirical data points" utilized by physicists, in this case (as in many others) turn out to be somewhat theory-dependent. Next, consider General Relativity. It is accepted by physicists primarily because of its mathematical intuitive elegance. There are (obscure) classical theories of physics that do not involve curved spacetime yet that also explain the same observations it does. But, they are uglier. In principle, yeah, we could do science by -- collectively gathering a huge table of data -- agreeing which data points are valid and which are not -- formalizing in great detail exactly how the data points were gathered, i.e. the correct interpretation of each data point relative to our shared experiential understanding of shared empirical everyday reality -- then assessing various patterns in the data points. Arguments between rivals would then come down to arguments regarding which patterns were more prominent in the dataset, which would not always be resolvable since there is no objective definition of the "prominence" of a pattern, there are many different definitions. But in reality this is not how science works. Many of the data points scientists look at are in reality theory-dependent, as in my top quark example. And in reality, many of the criteria people use to judge theories have to do with their sense of beauty and elegance, as in my General Relativity example -- not just with the prominence of the theory as a pattern in a huge dataset. So in reality, what happens is that we have a collection of scientific research programmes, each one consisting of a body of theories and a body of data accepted as "real", and gathered and interpreted consistently with the theories. One of these research programmes is refuted only when it gets boring, or dramatically fails to provide an intuitive explanation for some major phenomenon. This is how science really works. For better or for worse. You can maintain your idealization of science if you prefer, though. -- Ben G From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Jan 9 05:34:11 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:34:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Edge: The Neurology of Self-Awareness by VS Ramachandran Message-ID: <17715927.2564091168320852006.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> My favorite mirror neurons may be at it again, creating not only imitation and social empathy, but self awareness. >From today's Edge: V.S. Ramachandran on The Neurology of Self-Awareness "I suggest that self awareness is simply using mirror neurons for "looking at myself as if someone else is look at me" (the word "me" encompassing some of my brain processes, as well)." [see below] http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran07_index.html THE NEUROLOGY OF SELF-AWARENESS What is the self? How does the activity of neurons give rise to the sense of being a conscious human being? Even this most ancient of philosophical problems, I believe, will yield to the methods of empirical science. It now seems increasingly likely that the self is not a holistic property of the entire brain; it arises from the activity of specific sets of interlinked brain circuits. But we need to know which circuits are critically involved and what their functions might be. It is the "turning inward" aspect of the self ? its recursiveness ? that gives it its peculiar paradoxical quality. It has been suggested by Horace Barlow, Nick Humphrey, David Premack and Marvin Minsky (among others) that consciousness may have evolved primarily in a social context. Minsky speaks of a second parallel mechanism that has evolved in humans to create representations of earlier representations and Humphrey has argued that our ability to introspect may have evolved specifically to construct meaningful models of other peoples minds in order to predict their behavior. "I feel jealous in order to understand what jealousy feels like in someone else" ? a short cut to predicting that persons behavior. Here I develop these arguments further. If I succeed in seeing any further it is by "standing on the shoulders of these giants". Specifically, I suggest that "other awareness" may have evolved first and then counterintutively, as often happens in evolution, the same ability was exploited to model ones own mind ? what one calls self awareness. I will also suggest that a specific system of neurons called mirror neurons are involved in this ability. Finally I discuss some clinical examples to illustrate these ideas and make some testable predictions. There are many aspects of self. It has a sense of unity despite the multitude of sense impressions and beliefs. In addition it has a sense of continuity in time, of being in control of its actions ("free will"), of being anchored in a body, a sense of its worth, dignity and mortality (or immortality). Each of these aspects of self may be mediated by different centers in different parts of the brain and its only for convenience that we lump them together in a single word. As noted earlier there is one aspect of self that seems stranger than all the others ? the fact that it is aware of itself. I would like to suggest that groups of neurons called mirror neurons are critically involved in this ability. The discovery of mirror neurons was made G. Rizzolati, V Gallase and I Iaccoboni while recording from the brains of monkeys performed certain goal-directed voluntary actions. For instance when the monkey reached for a peanut a certain neuron in its pre motor cortex ( in the frontal lobes) would fire. Another neuron would fire when the monkey pushed a button, a third neuron when he pulled a lever. The existence of such Command neurons that control voluntary movements has been known for decades. Amazingly, a subset of these neurons had an additional peculiar property. The neuron fired not only (say) when the monkey reached for a peanut but also when it watched another monkey reach for a peanut! These were dubbed "mirror neurons" or "monkey-see-monkey-do" neurons. This was an extraordinary observation because it implies that the neuron (or more accurately, the network which it is part of) was not only generating a highly specific command ("reach for the nut") but was capable of adopting another monkey's point of view. It was doing a sort of internal virtual reality simulation of the other monkeys action in order to figure out what he was "up to". It was, in short, a "mind-reading" neuron. Neurons in the anterior cingulate will respond to the patient being poked with a needle; they are often referred to as sensory pain neurons. Remarkably, researchers at the University of Toronto have found that some of them will fire equally strongly when the patient watches someone else is poked. I call these "empathy neurons" or "Dalai Lama neurons" for they are, dissolving the barrier between self and others. Notice that in saying this one isn't being metaphorical; the neuron in question simply doesn't know the difference between it and others. Primates (including humans) are highly social creatures and knowing what someone is "up to" ? creating an internal simulation of his/her mind ? is crucial for survival, earning us the title "the Machiavellian primate". In an essay for Edge (2001) entitled "Mirror Neurons and the Great Leap Forward" I suggested that in addition to providing a neural substrate for figuring out another persons intentions (as noted by Rizzolati's group) the emergence and subsequent sophistication of mirror neurons in hominids may have played a crucial role in many quintessentially human abilities such as empathy, learning through imitation (rather than trial and error), and the rapid transmission of what we call "culture". (And the "great leap forward" ? the rapid Lamarckian transmission of "accidental") one-of-a kind inventions. I turn now to the main concern of this essay ? the nature of self. When you think of your own self, what comes into mind? You have sense of "introspecting" on your own thoughts and feelings and of " watching" yourself going about your business ? as if you were looking at yourself from another persons vantage point. How does this happen ? Evolution often takes advantage of pre-existing structures to evolve completely novel abilities. I suggest that once the ability to engage in cross modal abstraction emerged ? e.g. between visual "vertical" on the retina and photoreceptive "vertical" signaled by muscles (for grasping trees) it set the stage for the emergence of mirror neurons in hominids. Mirror neurons are also abundant in the inferior parietal lobule ? a structure that underwent an accelerated expansion in the great apes and, later, in humans.. As the brain evolved further the lobule split into two gyri ? the supramarginal gyrus that allowed you to "reflect" on your own anticipated actions and the angular gyrus that allowed you to "reflect" on your body (on the right) and perhaps on other more social and linguistic aspects of your self (left hemisphere) I have argued elsewhere that mirror neurons are fundamentally performing a kind of abstraction across activity in visual maps and motor maps. This in turn may have paved the way for more conceptual types of abstraction; such as metaphor ("get a grip on yourself"). How does all this lead to self awareness? I suggest that self awareness is simply using mirror neurons for "looking at myself as if someone else is look at me" (the word "me" encompassing some of my brain processes, as well). The mirror neuron mechanism ? the same algorithm ? that originally evolved to help you adopt another's point of view was turned inward to look at your own self. This, in essence, is the basis of things like "introspection". It may not be coincidental that we use phrases like "self conscious" when you really mean that you are conscious of others being conscious of you. Or say "I am reflecting" when you mean you are aware of yourself thinking. In other words the ability to turn inward to introspect or reflect may be a sort of metaphorical extension of the mirror neurons ability to read others minds. It is often tacitly assumed that the uniquely human ability to construct a "theory of other minds" or "TOM" (seeing the world from the others point of view; "mind reading", figuring out what someone is up to, etc.) must come after an already pre- existing sense of self. I am arguing that the exact opposite is true; the TOM evolved first in response to social needs and then later, as an unexpected bonus, came the ability to introspect on your own thoughts and intentions. I claim no great originality for these ideas; they are part of the current zeitgeist. Any novelty derives from the manner in which I shall marshall the evidence from physiology and from our own work in neurology. Note that I am not arguing that mirror neurons are sufficient for the emergence of self; only that they must have played a pivotal role. (Otherwise monkeys would have self awareness and they don't). They may have to reach a certain critical level of sophistication that allowed them to build on earlier functions (TOM) and become linked to certain other brain circuits, especially the Wernickes ("language comprehension") area and parts of the frontal lobes. Does the mirror neuron theory of self make other predictions? Given our discovery that autistic children have deficient mirror neurons and correspondingly deficient TOM, we would predict that they would have a deficient sense of self (TMM) and difficulty with introspection. The same might be true for other neurological disorders; damage to the inferior parietal lobule/TPO junction (which are known to contain mirror neurons) and parts of the frontal lobes should also lead to a deficiency of certain aspects self awareness. (Incidentally, Gallup's mirror test ? removing a paint splotch from your face while looking at a mirror ? is not an adequate test of self awareness, even though it is touted as such. We have seen patients who vehemently claim that their reflection in the mirror is "someone else" yet they pass the Gallup test!) It has recently been shown that if a conscious awake human patient has his parietal lobe stimulated during neurosurgery, he will sometimes have an "out of body" experience ? as if he was a detached entity watching his own body from up near the ceiling. I suggest that this arises because of a dysfunction in the mirror neuron system in the parieto-occipital junction caused by the stimulating electrode. These neurons are ordinarily activated when we temporarily "adopt" another's view of our body and mind (as outlined earlier in this essay). But we are always aware we are doing this partly because of other signals (both sensory and reafference/command signals) telling you you are not literally moving out of yourself. (There may also be frontal inhibitory mechanisms that stop you from involuntarily mimicking another person looking at you). If these mirror neuron-related mechanisms are deranged by the stimulating electrode the net result would be an out-of-body experience. Some years ago we examined a patient with a syndrome called anosognosia who had a lesion in his right parietal lobe and vehemently denied the paralysis. Remarkably the patient also denied the paralysis of another patient sitting in an adjacent wheelchair! (who failed to move the arm on command from the physician.) Here again was, evidence that two seemingly contradictory aspects of self ? its the individuation and intense privacy vs. its social reciprocity ? may complement each other and arise from the same neural mechanism, mirror neurons. Like the two sides of a Mobius strip, they are really the same, even they appear ? on local inspection ? to be fundamentally different. Have we solved the problem of self? Obviously not ? we have barely scratched the surface. But hopefully we have paved the way for future models and empirical studies on the nature of self, a problem that philosophers have made essentially no headway in solving. (And not for want of effort ? they have been at it for three thousand years). Hence our grounds for optimism about the future of brain research ? especially for solving what is arguably Science's greatest riddle. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 9 05:47:28 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:47:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] a vastly longer partial response to Max's question In-Reply-To: <200701090346.l093kPbk020700@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> References: <7641ddc60701081650n4cdbfd89qcebb9721b9e43c2c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070108190603.02229790@satx.rr.com> <200701090346.l093kPbk020700@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070108234113.022a77c0@satx.rr.com> This is the quick&dirty method. Apologies for the length (but feel the quality!). A section from my 1994 book THE ARCHITECTURE OF BABEL: ======= The Art of Science ten: models "[S]cientific sociologists, theorists of history, rationalist philosophers, computer scientists, hackers, and the rest see a truck being driven through a featureless desert. They see the tracks on the desert floor and notice that they provide a complete description of where the truck has been. Some notice regular characteristics in the tracks such as the regular indentations caused by the treads and proclaim that this explains the progress of the truck. They are like logicians, or cognitive scientists concerned with the fine structure of human reason. Others notice more general patterns in the overall shape of the track and by careful analysis fit the shape to something like a mathematical series and try to predict its next few terms. They are like people with a theory of history, or a scientific model of social progress, or a philosophical model of the development of science. Others appreciate the complexity of the track and endlessly refine the model with new terms. They are the econometricians and computer hackers. Look inside the truck, however, and you will see that its progress is governed by a gang of cutthroats, each fighting for control of the steering wheel. The truck is history, society, reason, science, culture.... In science studies it is the sociologists of scientific knowledge ... who have been stressing the gang-of-cutthroats model in the face of the rationalist philosophers' appeal to the orderliness or logic of scientific history and progress." H. M. Collins, 1990[i] Once science was routinely hailed as the finest pinnacle of human reason. Today, sociologists like the whimsical but absolutely serious Harry Collins tell us it is better understood as a gang of cut-throats warring among themselves. More politely, we may prefer to see science as a field of political contest, with its typical strategies, discourses and institutional practices, contained and forwarded by skilful negotiators. [...] Provisionally, I shall take it that science is a human activity resulting in an instrumentally powerful and coherent model of some aspect of the world, by preference based in interpretations of formal mathematical structures (themselves axiomatizable and content-free),[vi] open to empirical investigation (preferably experimental) on the one hand and theoretical elaboration (preferably computational) on the other. This is clearly a paradigm based in the instrumentally successful practices of physics. It tends to unravel when we ask whether biology, psychology or even geology are sciences under this rubric, for these disciplines tend to find robust mathematical treatments evasive at best and misguided at worst. Nevertheless, the historical primacy of this paradigm in `the West' is indubitable. Underlying this definition is the extraordinary phenomenon that Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner, not a philosophical realist, characterized as `The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences'.[vii] In a nutshell, this is Wigner's case: `the concepts of mathematics are not chosen for their conceptual simplicity ... but for their amenability to clever manipulations and to striking, brilliant arguments. Let us not forget that the Hilbert space of quantum mechanics is the complex Hilbert space, with a Hermitean scalar product. Surely to the unpreoccupied mind, complex numbers are far from natural or simple and they cannot be suggested by physical observations. Furthermore, the use of complex numbers is in this case not a calculational trick of applied mathematics but comes close to being a necessity of the laws of quantum mechanics' (p. 533). More generally, `the mathematical formulation of the physicist's often crude experience leads in an uncanny number of cases to an amazingly accurate description of a large class of phenomena. This shows that the mathematical language has more to commend it than being the only language which we can speak; it shows that it is, in a very real sense, the correct language' (p. 534). The central importance of mathematics in the contemporary demarcation of science from other forms of discourse and practice is emphatic. If a body of observations cannot be ordered by a mathematical model, it is highly unlikely to be accepted within the workshop of science.[viii] Of course, empirical study of the world (including that empirical practice which is the work of the mathematical researcher) is equally paramount, though quite what its status is has been the subject of endless confusion and debate. If the goal of the Vienna Circle of logical positivists was a totalized science unified about a demarcation principle of meaning - the verification principle - its ironical outcome was the establishment instead of Sir Karl Popper's falsificationist doctrine. Briefly, Popper's account of science claims that what we attempt in science is to describe and (so far as possible) explain reality. ... The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingenious and severe attempts to refute them.[ix] No mention is made here of absolute truth.[x] Implicit is a pragmatic model (and nothing can be more founded in pragmatism than a neo-Darwinian evolutionary epistemology) where the claims of a science are tested not against some postulated noumenon or class of Universals but against rival competitors, the more the merrier. Far more metaphysical than Popper's model is the realism, ironically, of Jacob Bronowski: Science is the creation of concepts and their exploration in the facts. It has no other test of the concept than its empirical truth to fact. Truth is the drive at the centre of science; it must have the habit of truth, not as a dogma but as a process. ... Science is not a mechanism but a human progress, and not a set of finding but the search for them. Those who think that science is ethically neutral confuse the findings of science, which are, with the activity of science, which is not.[xi] So if it was comfortably conceded that error in science was inevitable, it was exactly in trial and error, and rethinking and retrial, that knowledge crept ever closer to adequacy: if not truth, at least some working approximation. Sir Karl Popper was the Old Testament deity of the laboratory bench and Jacob Bronowski the New, Bronowski teaching that the softer human values like tolerance were not in conflict with science but actually were crucial to its practice. Above all, democratic liberal values were the hallmark of science, and fearless honesty its very bedrock. Both these models meet severe difficulties when full attention is paid to the truism that scientific observations are theory-dependent and hence fallible. `Observation of x,' Norwood Russell Hanson noted, `is shaped by prior knowledge of x', and influenced by the language or notation used to express and record the observations, `without which there would be little we could recognize as knowledge.'[xii] How is a bold conjecture to be tested except by observations which are themselves implicated in a web of theories and hypotheses? Adapting Lacan's famous conjecture, perhaps science is structured as a language, with all the access to aporia and ambiguity which that postulate insists upon. Interestingly enough, Bronowski himself made just this suggestion a quarter century ago, noting that Such a system describes the activity of nature, and ourselves in it; it is not a blueprint of the machinery of nature.... Science then is not so much a model of nature as a living language for describing her.[xiii] Leaving aside the personification of nature (which is either amusingly old-fashioned or astonishingly prescient of a later generation's Gaia-worship), one might imagine that this figure implies the sort of radically open hermeneutics which poststructuralism has erected on Lacan's conjecture. Curiously, and by striking contrast, Bronowski actually offered a model of science as a determinate Turing machine: The exposition of science is always an instruction for testing the totality of laws as they stand at that moment. It could therefore be put on a tape that would direct a testing machine. ... For the endeavor of science is to resolve ambiguities by making ... critical and decisive tests between alternatives. [...U]nlike poetry, it does not seek to exploit its ambiguities, but to minimize them. This is the paradox of imagination in science, that it has for its aim the impoverishment of imagination. (pp. 49-50) No view could be farther from the constructivist doctrines of science which gain increasing currency today, finding their support in the thesis that all observation and experiment are dependent on prior theorising. Granted, that thesis in turn is a patent opportunity for infinite regress of the most noxious kind, or at least of a Hofstadterian Tangled Loop. (In brief: What theory does the theory-dependency thesis depend on, and why - that is, on what theorised grounds - should that theory be trusted?) Yet it was Popper himself, rather than some wild-eyed anarchist, who heavily stressed this dependency of observation on theory, often on theories which are built-in by evolution: Classical epistemology which takes our sense perceptions as `given', as the `data' from which our theories have to be constructed by some process of induction, can only be described as pre-Darwinian. It fails to take account of the fact that the alleged data are in fact adaptive reactions, and therefore interpretations which incorporate theories and prejudices and which, like theories, are impregnated with conjectural expectations; that there can be no pure perceptions, no pure datum; exactly as there can be no pure observational language, since all languages are impregnated with theories and myths.[xiv] `But it is precisely the fact that observation statements are fallible,' argues A. F. Chalmers, `and their acceptance only tentative and open to revision, that undermines the falsificationist position.'[xv] The Copernican theory was already falsified at the time of its announcement by the apparent constancy in the sizes of the disks of Mars and Venus whatever their distance from the Earth. `One hundred years later, the falsification could be revoked because of new developments in optics' (Ibid).[xvi] Imre Lakatos offered to solve this difficulty with the claim that `the typical descriptive unit of great scientific achievements is not an isolated hypothesis but rather a research programme', containing a `hard core' (such as Newton's three laws of mechanics and law of gravitation) which is `tenaciously protected from refutation by a vast "protective belt" of auxiliary hypotheses' that can be abandoned, modified, or added to under the direction of the research program's positive heuristic, `a powerful problem-solving machinery, which, with the help of sophisticated mathematical techniques, digests anomalies and even turns them into positive evidence.'[xvii] Lakatos positions his own views within an internal shift in the ways science is nowadays conceptualised: There are several methodologies afloat in contemporary philosophy of science; but they are all very different from what used to be understood by `methodology' in the seventeenth or even eighteenth century. Then it was hoped that methodology would provide scientists with a mechanical book of rules for solving problems. This hope has now been given up: modern methodologies or `logics of discovery' consist merely of a set of ... rules for the appraisal of ready, articulated theories. (p. 103) He discusses four models. Inductivism allows into the body of science only propositions which describe `hard facts' or are `infallible inductive generalisations' from such facts; despite the logical objections to any program grounded in induction, and the patent fallibility of observation, this has been the predominant methodological model for the sciences. Conventionalism, the principal rival to induction, is exemplified very broadly by a number of recent doctrines, especially those founded in Duhem: Popper's conjectural model, Kuhn's communities bonded by common paradigms, Feyerabend's radical epistemological anarchy. For conventionalists, any convenient framework of fact-holding `pigeonholes' may be constructed, and retained in use until a simpler or less clumsy one is devised. Each school differs, of course, in its account of the forces which precipitate theory change. Methodological falsificationism, Popper's original codification of conventionalism, is granted a special category.[xviii] Its historians seek `great, "bold", falsifiable theories and ... great negative crucial experiments' (pp. 108-9). Finally, there is Lakatos's own methodology of scientific research programs, described earlier (p. 112): `A research program is said to be progressing as long as its theoretical growth anticipates its empirical growth...; it is stagnating ... as long as it gives only post hoc explanations either of chance discoveries or of facts anticipated by, and discovered in, a rival programme...' So a program can be shelved if a rival `supersedes' it in this fashion, but it may always recover (as one sees in the history of the wave/corpuscular debate on light). In turn, ideological effects from beyond the boundaries of scientific research proper may (perhaps must) render such large-scale conceptual orientations highly fallible, as Lakatos is the first to admit. Inductivism, for example, is an `internalist' doctrine which gains its warrant from its successes as estimated within the practice of science. Nevertheless, it cannot explain `why certain facts rather than others were selected' for study, and is `compatible with many different supplementary empirical or external theories of problem-choice ... for instance ... with the vulgar-Marxist view that problem-choice is determined by social needs...' (pp. 104-5). Barry Barnes summarizes this cultural and economic framing of scientific attitudes and practice rather well: The rise of science in the seventeenth century seems to have been part of a major shift of thought and sensibility involving a marked decline of anthropocentrism, anthropomorphism and teleology. ... There is, however, more to science than thought and ideas. Primarily, it is an activity. And today it is a routinely-established, securely financed activity ... carried out by trained and qualified professionals. Here is the base for an alternative, equally valid, way of thinking of the rise of science - in terms of its emergence and growth as a professional occupation. ... Science has established itself and stabilized its position through its involvement in a vast network of relationships of interdependence much more than through any general diffusion of scientific ideas and attitudes.[xix] This (at least partial) dependence on agendas set beyond the boundaries of science is of increasingly central significance to philosophers and sociologists of science, as Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin stress in a recent attempt to recast science in a (non-vulgar) Marxian dialectical mode: Many people will now admit that the problematic of science - what questions are thought to be worth asking and what priority will be awarded them - is also strongly influenced by social and economic factors.... But nothing evokes as much hostility among intellectuals as the suggestion that social forces influence or even dictate either the scientific method or the facts and theories of science.[xx] More than one of Bronowski's decent middle-class chaps has proved to have his nose well into the trough, attending less to the music of the spheres than to the paymaster's organ-grinding. Rather a lot of those Popperian Conjectures and Refutations buzz away inside an agenda set by corporations interested almost wholly in maximizing profit, at whatever cost to everyone beyond their boardrooms, or by military agencies whose conjectures tend to be refuted in experiments involving large amounts of dead human flesh.[xxi] Science, in short, like any other major human undertaking, is to a considerable degree a matter of interests - conscious or covert, set by policy and ideology alike. So pervasive are some of these ideological factors that they become all but invisible - so that, for example, the phallocentric, reductive cast of traditional scientific practice has tended to make the paradigm of male domination seem utterly ordinary and unexceptionable. Still, even if we acknowledge that scientific practice is often, if not centrally, partisan in motivation, may we not yet decide that it is preferable to support the paradigm of Mendelian genetics over the bullying Lamarckism of Lysenko?[xxii] That it helps to know if some piece of research on histocompatibility is based on entirely fraudulent data, or on genuine information grossly massaged and manipulated by some ruined post-doctoral candidate under pressure to succeed and heading for a nervous breakdown? It is not all that rare, and it is not only apprentice scientists who yield to temptation.[xxiii] Still, despite such scandals, is it not generally accepted that the scientist is our epoch's pre-eminent creative seeker after truth? The Australian novelist David Foster caustically asserts that the scientist is, rather, the operational definition of a hack (perhaps the human instance of Bronowski's Turing machine).[xxiv] Despite a widespread romantic image, the highest ambition of the scientist qua scientist is a set of procedures, of algorithms, so banal and repeatable that anyone possessing the appropriate trained skills can obtain reliable results by following the ordained steps. There is another way of regarding the scientist seethed in his or her own juices, one concerned less with telos and more with the experience of pursuing scientific research. In a counter to Foster's view, one might pose a surprising image from Lewis Thomas, former director of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and extraordinary rhapsodic essayist of science: Scientists at work are rather like young animals engaged in savage play. When they are near an answer their hair stands on end, they sweat, they are awash in their own adrenalin.[xxv] Thomas has been an experimentalist as well as an administrator, not a theorist, but his description finds a striking echo from Richard Feynman, whose Nobel Prize was for seminal work in quantum electrodynamics, that ultimate abstraction: Sometimes I feel like an ape, trying to figure out how nature's going to behave, fooling around with all those symbols.... My father got me interested in all these things by telling me how wonderful nature was. But he couldn't know the terrible excitement of making a new discovery. You get so excited you can't calculate, you can't think any more. It isn't just that nature's wonderful, because if someone tells me the answer to a problem I'm working on, it's nowhere near as exciting as if I work it out myself.[xxvi] On Thomas Kuhn's account, science is by turns classical and romantic, austere and explosive, conservative and revolutionary.[xxvii] Beyond those binary oppositions (nowhere in reality found so disjunctively) there exist shades of tone and mood. Science is also, in a psychologically significant sense, magical. Among philosophers of science, perhaps only Michel Serres, with his alchemic patron Hermes Trismegistus standing at the boundaries of myth and science, has offered this recognition. While much of it may be usually hackwork, it can clearly stir the hairs on the neck, in the way Housman tells us strong, powerful poetry can - galvanizing body as well as spirit. In another passage, describing a Wood's Hole beach where marine biologists eat their lunch, Lewis Thomas captures something lyrical which transcends the myth of the cold laboratory elitist: You can hear the sound from the beach at a distance ... that most extraordinary noise, half-shout, half-song, made by confluent, simultaneously raised human voices, explaining things to each other. (p. 62) For a non-scientist, the sole access to that joyous babble is a voyeuristic eavesdropping. It is a relationship beyond scopophilia, reminiscent of the ancient tension between artist and audience. What we as witnesses create (re-create) in the canvas has, no doubt, only a tendentious intersection with the sweating impulse which laid down its fields of colour. Art-as-consumable-object is a piece of social technology, akin to the physical technology which is at once the motivating spur and the merest by-product of Feynman's terrible excitement. During recent decades, even as the art market boomed and interviews with artists and writers were everywhere published, we have seen a strenuous principled repudiation of the consumer aesthetic. The artist might not be dead in fact but there are sound reasons for acting as if death separates us from his or her authoritative hand. Barriers between artist and audience, text and receiver/(re)creator are to be broken down, or seen always-already to have vanished. Works (or texts) are neither exquisite refinements nor brutal assaults - though of course on some level they continue to be both - perpetrated by an active artist on the passive sensibilities of a supine audience. The fact remains that technological cultures are simply too diverse to sustain any wistful return to the often-mooted Australian Aboriginal or Balinese equation of Society-as-Art. What is more, and placing insuperable obstacles before the attainment of this non-alienated dream, much of the creative thrust of a high-energy, high-information culture finds its expression in scientific research, usually mathematically founded, of a thousand different varieties. We lack a conveyable poetics of science (accepting the pun, along with the core idea of a theoretics of scientific practice) by which the non-specialist, the non-scientist, might grasp that fierce excitement of which Thomas and Feynman sing. Adapting Sontag: perhaps we need an erotics of science. I am not disguising the somewhat romantic cast of this view of science (this valorization, perhaps). A sceptical spectator's appreciation of current scientific knowledge, conjectures and practice might be less fruitfully grounded in Foster's venom than in a recognition of the primitive intoxication which makes hairs lift off one's neck. Yet such is the antinomy generated in any investigation of the role of commoditized industrial science that an analysis which finds this romanticism nothing better than blatant individualist ideology cannot be discounted. Levins and Lewontin provide a characteristic account, drawing (as Marxists, curiously, seem fond of doing) on the pietistic anarchist Tolstoy: Scientists see themselves as free agents independently pursuing their own inclinations. `Just as in astronomy the difficulty of admitting the motion of the earth lay in the immediate sensation of the earth's stationariness and of the planets' motion, so in history the difficulty of recognizing the subjection of the personality to the laws of space and time and causation lies in the difficulty of surmounting the direct sensation of the independence of one's personality' (Tolstoy, War and Peace). Nowhere is the sensation of independence stronger and the deception more pitiful than among intellectuals. (p. 205 6) As it happens, a grimmer, more pragmatic response than Lewis Thomas's has become fashionable among non-scientific intellectuals, grounded in a combination of clear-eyed cynicism toward the actual practice of science in centralized technocracies, and (all too often) considerable ignorance of the results and procedures of science. It is instructive to observe a process enacted by many feminist women (who on their own analysis have been excluded traditionally on grossly sexist grounds from access to the laboratory bench) in responding to new reproductive technologies, and enacted as well by many `liberal arts' conservationists and `ecologists' of either sex (also usually individuals excluded by educational streaming from any significant schooling in the scientific research community; I am one of these people). Overcoming their aversion to the cold Frankenstein patriarchal horror of it all, they swot up their recombinant genetics and molecular biology and neurophysiology, the better to arm themselves for combat. The scientists are trying to kill us, or control us utterly, runs the subtext of this approach; or if they are not deliberately trying to, at least they are letting themselves be used to that end. Faustian tunnel vision has brought scientists to a 20th century version of the Treason of the Clerks. Study their works, the better to defend against them, but do not be trapped into sympathy for their reductive, exploitative paradigms. The sentiment usually has force, and is often backed by gruesome example. Yet populist and legislative intervention surely cannot be put to best use if it proceeds from a fundamental mistrust and (as it seems to me) misunderstanding of what scientists have learned about the world, and what has impelled them in their efforts. Anxious and revolted spectators will never apprehend the joyful delirium Feynman expresses, because most of the time non-scientists simply have no idea what a given research issue actually is. Informed of the question in simplified, often analogical terms, we must then wrestle second-hand with a variety of tentative answers offered by working scientists. Here in awful earnest is Snow's `two cultures'. Still, it is possible to begin by seeking out that peculiar kind of elevated pleasure gained in simply listening to those confluent human voices explaining things. Is this a regressive and dangerous pleasure? Perhaps; but it is also an aspect of maturity to rejoice in the activity of complex discourse. Of course this is to suppose that scientists are to be trusted in their testimony, which admittedly is one of the issues under debate. What is more, the nuclear bomb designers at Lawrence Livermore declare themselves motivated by just such intoxication with difficult problems and powerful techniques of solution...[xxviii] One extreme feminist response to this suspicion or perception is an absolute repudiation of `male' or `masculine' modes of rationality. It has been characterized thus (though not endorsed) by feminist philosopher Moira Gatens: [T]here is no relation between feminism and philosophy or more generally between feminism and theory. Feminism, on this view, is pure praxis, the very act of theorizing being somehow identified with masculinity or maleness. ... This reification of philosophy[xxix] misses the point that philosophy is, among other things, a human activity that is on-going.[xxx] At a clear alternative remove from the official-science thanatocracy is a charming bridge linking the sciences and the humanities discerned by an unconventional philosopher of science, Nicholas Maxwell, who is no whit ashamed of adopting a personal approach to these grave matters: For as long as I can remember, I have had the passionate desire to get to the bottom of things, to understand.... To begin with this took the form of the desire to understand the ultimate structure of the physical universe. As a twelve-year-old, I read with fascinated incomprehension accounts of nuclear physics..., relativity and quantum theory. It was above all the mystery, the incomprehensibility, of this strange world that appealed to my imagination.... With the customary unselfconscious audacity of the young, I decided that I would discover the secret of all this mystery, and thus reveal to the world the true meaning of existence.[xxxi] Maxwell usefully reminds us that the first lure of science is not its instrumental power, its brutal force, but its magic, its capacity to kindle awe, wonder, and the desire for knowledge, for explanation. (Of course, an epistemologist alert to the role of evolution would find behind these drives and pleasures the instrumental values of adaptive cognitive characteristics in a world susceptible of forecasts based on approximately-accurate models, and rightly so.) With adolescence, richer varieties of knowledge came within his ken. Maxwell awoke to the other culture, to literature, to the inner world of human life: Here, I began to feel was reality. ... I would discover the innermost secret of this mysterious and passionate world of human experience by writing novels. I would create a living and breathing universe, so real in its dramatic intensity that it would all but engulf the real world. (p. 278) Alas, he proved no more successful in this ambition than he had as a theoretical physicist or a mathematician. Returning to university, he studied philosophy. After a year he stumbled on the satori that The proper aim of philosophy is to help us resolve the riddle of our desires. ... I had sought the answer to the riddle of life in the ultimate nature of the physical universe, and in the ultimate nature of our inner world. Actually the answer to the riddle of my life lay around me all the time, in the experience of living my life. (Ibid) Maxwell, in short, had experienced an epiphanic insight unavailable from the standpoint of classic accounts of science, though it smacks rather strongly of Leavisite enthusiasm for `felt life'. Subsequently he elaborated that insight into a paradigm for evaluating and guiding the choice of `metaphysical blueprints' which he sees underlying the process of science, in his model of `humane aim-oriented empiricism'. Science is valuable insofar as it aids the achievement of human goals `via technological applications of knowledge'[xxxii] and, independently, has cultural value. In a startlingly polite bourgeois estimate, Maxwell remarks, `The whole point of cultural science, we may say, is to encourage us to have a more trusting and loving relationship with the world - a relationship that is not based on fear, on frustration, on bitterness, on desperate terror, but ... on calm, realistic, unblinking confidence and trust' (p. 140). In a move familiar from Capra, Roszak, et al, Maxwell thunders against `desecrated' science, reductionist and ready to kill us, launching into a Blakean outburst affirming the presence `out there' of `meaning, significance', and so on. Might one therefore employ science no less than art `to extend and enrich his personal experience'? Not easily, but yes. Ruthlessly, greedily, mercilessly, I personally exploit all the labour of scientists to explore and enrich my world.... I have discovered how to take just what I need, what I want and value, separating out the precious essence from the irrelevancy. From the intricate mathematical formulae of modern physics I have learned how, to some extent, to pluck out the ideas. From the jargon of biology, and amongst the unvoiced, foolish assumptions (as they seem to me) I plunder what is for me precious and valuable.... I rarely find other academics engaged in the same game: they stick to their specialized subjects; they would regard what I do as a combination of insufferable arrogance and academic suicide.... And gradually it has begun to dawn on me; what I do is the real thing. This is what science is for, from a cultural standpoint. (p. 146 7) Such drastic analyses of science (the anti-scientific and the `humane empiricist') by no means exhaust the critique which sets out to undermine positivistic programs and their fruitless search for a demarcation principle to divide authentic natural-scientific knowledge from the traditional `metaphysical' human-science pretender. Some decades ago, for example, the sociologist Diana Crane drew together a very large mass of research and theoretical speculation of the characteristics of knowledge diffusion in the sciences. Surprisingly, she proposed certain fundamental homologies between the sciences and the humanities, regularities underlying their notable differences. It is to that claim we now turn. [i].H. M. Collins, Artificial Experts. Social Knowledge and Intelligent Machines, MIT Press, 1990, pp. 44, 230. [...] [vi].Especially, in today's physics, the principle of symmetry. See Heinz R. Pagels, Perfect Symmetry. The Search for the Beginning of Time, [1985] Penguin 1992. [vii].Eugene Wigner, `The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences', Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1960, pp. 1 14; here cited from Timothy Ferris, ed., The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics, Little, Brown 1991, pp. 526-40. [viii].A `workshop' (or perhaps `fortress') whose boundaries are patrolled by, of course, a self-ordaining interpretative community of practitioners. So although deviant `sciences' such as astrology and parapsychology do not lack for elaborate if partial mathematical models, the apparent implications of their knowledge-claims are too disruptive of accepted grand paradigms to be allowed entry (see James McClenon, Deviant Science: The Case of Parapsychology, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1984). Conversely, those `soft' disciplines which lack such foundational formalisms as time-evolving equations like the Hamiltonian tend to be permitted entry only to the lobby of the workshop (as defined by its high-prestige members: notably mathematicians, physicists and chemists...). [ix].Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford, 1972, pp. 40, 81. His italics. [x].In the 1934 edition of his Logik der Forshung, Popper `proudly noted that "in [his] logic of science it is possible to avoid using the concepts "true" and "false"' (Imre Lakatos, The methodology of scientific research programmes. Philosophical Papers, Volume I, ed. John Worrall and Gregory Currie, Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 155). Later, Popper introduced the problematic notion of verisimilitude, which extracted the excess of a theory's `truth-content' over `falsity-content' (Popper, Chapter 10, Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963). [xi].Jacob Bronowski, Science and Human Values, Penguin, 1964, pp. 66, 70. Of course, the surprise for the reader was in learning that Bronowski deemed the activity of science, and its social concomitants, morally positive rather than neutral. [xii].Norwood Russell Hanson, Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Cambridge University Press, 1958, p. 19. [xiii].Jacob Bronowski, The Identity of Man, Pelican, 1967, p. 38. [xiv].Karl Popper, `Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject', in Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford, 1972, pp. 145 6. [xv].Alan F. Chalmers, What is this thing called Science? An assessment of the nature and status of science and its methods, University of Queensland Press, 1979, p. 60. [xvi].In this context of revocation, it is interesting to note that the second edition, 1982, carefully dissociates itself from Chalmers' earlier enthusiasm for Althusser's model of scientific truth. `I have learned my lesson and in future will be very wary of being unduly influenced by the latest Paris fashions.' (2nd edition, p. xiii). [xvii].All the citations are to Imre Lakatos, The methodology of scientific research programmes, p. 4. See especially Chap. 2, `History of science and its rational reconstructions', pp. 102-38. [xviii].In the 1990s, this valuation of Popper might seem disproportionate. For Lakatos, however, `Popper's ideas represent the most important development in the philosophy of the twentieth century[...] Personally, my debt to him is immeasurable; more than anyone else, he changed my life' (Ibid., p. 139). [xix].Barry Barnes, About Science, Blackwell, 1985, pp. 8, 26. [xx].Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, The Dialectical Biologist, Harvard University Press, 1985, p. 4. [xxi].Barry Barnes estimates `the proportion of R & D work which is directed toward the requirements of security and prestige' at one-third (p. 29). This is truer of Britain than of Japan, say; in Britain, `more public money is currently spent on military R & D than on all other R & D objectives combined.' (Idem.) [xxii].This standard characterization of that incident is called sharply into question by Levins and Lewontin (pp. 163 96); they dispute both the Western and Soviet dissident view of Lysenkoism as `the machinations of an opportunist-careerist operating in an authoritarian and capricious political system', and Maoist valorization `as a triumph of the application of dialectical method to a scientific problem [...] suppressed by the bourgeois West and by Soviet revisionism' (p. 163). [xxiii].See the remarkable cases discussed in Alexander Kohn, False Prophets. Fraud and Error in Science and Medicine, Blackwell, 1986. [xxiv].Personal communication. Foster has a PhD in chemistry, and has done oncology research in the USA, a premier example of Big Science. [xxv].Lewis Thomas, The Lives of a Cell. Notes of a Biology Watcher, [1974] Allen Lane, 1980. [xxvi].Cited from an interview with Nigel Calder in his The Mind of Man. An investigation into current research on the brain and human nature, BBC, 1970, p. 215. This statement is echoed everywhere in Richard P. Feynman's feisty memoir `Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!' Adventures of a Curious Character, [1985] Bantam, 1986, where he describes his ceaselessly curious bent, displaying it in scenes ranging from childhood experiments with radio to work at Los Alamos on the bomb, amateur safecracking, mastering the Brazilian frigidiera, deciphering the Mayan Dresden Codex, and exploring altered consciousness states in an isolation tank. [xxvii].Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edition, Enlarged, University of Chicago Press, 1970. [xxviii].See, for example, the interview with William Shuler in Discover, September, 1982. [xxix].And, one might add, of scientific theory and practice as well. [xxx].Moira Gatens, `Feminism, philosophy, and riddles without answers', a paper given to the `Women and Philosophy Conference', Adelaide, 1983 (here cited from her revised version). [xxxi].Nicholas Maxwell, From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution in the Aims and Methods of Science, Blackwell, 1984, pp. 277. [xxxii].Nicholas Maxwell, What's Wrong with Science: Towards a People's Rational Science of Delight and Compassion, Bran's Head Books, 1976, p. 139. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 9 05:50:17 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:50:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070108234941.023f9de8@satx.rr.com> [I suspect this went only to Max and not the list:] At 09:49 PM 1/8/2007 -0600, Max wrote: >Damien: In affirming a (sophisticated) social constructivism in >epistemology, do you mean: > >(a) our means of perceiving and understanding knowledge are socially >constructed Self-evidently; babies don't pop out of the womb citing Kant and Heisenberg. >or >(b) truth itself is a social construction I don't think this sort of discourse is amenable to one liners. So: depending on context, yes, no, both. >And if it's (a), would I be right to suspect that your view is that >we can understand and allow for the resulting filtering? Plainly we can try to allow for bias and pre-ordained local discursive or genetically-driven templates, and build instruments to help us bypass some of our sensory and computational limitations. But it looks pretty apparent that we have only limited success, although as John Clark observes bridges which are constructed by societies are less likely to collapse if the socially constructed knowledge used in their design is less flawed than that used by the worshipful company of levitating sex magician sappers. >(As distinguished from the view that we're permanently and >hopelessly locked behind our socially constructed lenses? In many respects, certainly. Can we experience--grok truly--what it is to be a frog? Or an ardent slave-owner? Damien From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 9 06:35:29 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:35:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Easter Island not a human-created disaster? In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60701080755g89baa2di9dff031d2bfe49cc@mail.gmail.com> <20070107125231.GK6974@leitl.org> <7641ddc60701080755g89baa2di9dff031d2bfe49cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070108181302.03d3c6b8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:38 PM 1/8/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: snip >Jared Diamond made Easter Island the main plank in his book about >collapsing societies. So if it is removed, then his case is certainly >much weaker. The strong point Hunt makes is that the settlement happened much later, around 1200 AD and that rats kept the palm tree from regenerating. And he makes a much weaker case that the population only reached about 3000 before being somehow limited. I buy into his first point. Assuming 20 people settled and a 3 % growth rate that's a bit over 4 doublings per century. 20,000 is 10 exp 3 times this much or 2 exp 10. So by 1450 there could have been 20,000. I ran this calculation a long time ago and could not figure out how the population had grown so slowly. And I agree with him about the rats. He doesn't say what limited the population. Azar Gat makes the case that wars over resources generally limit historical hunter gatherer and primitive farming populations. The only big question is was there a population overshoot and decline, even an undershoot. That depends to a considerable extent on the maximum potential of the local ecosystem and if over exploiting it reduced its ability to support human population leading to a crash. Such models as I have seen indicate that's rather possible, in fact, the models suggest that the population had recovered from a low of about half what was there when Europeans arrived. There is no doubt that European contact was a disaster for the natives, but that does not have anything to do with the deforestation disaster which Hunt places before contact. None of these relatively minor details undermines Diamond's work. >The effect of climate changes (drought, floods, plagues, disease, >etc.) on early human societies is a hidden history that is only now >gradually being revealed. Ancient history recorded wars, revolutions, >invasions, as written by the victors, recording their achievements. >But they rarely commented on the environmental factors that often >drove people to these desperate measures, or weakened the losing >opponents in the war. >In some cases the society just disappeared.. True. A combination of bad weather and an inappropriate human response to war was lethal over a huge area in the American Southwest. Go here: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 and search for "corn farmer." Incidentally, one early human caused ecological disaster was in Greece. They mitigated it with boats. Virtually the same thing wiped out the Myans. Keith Henson From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 08:03:54 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 09:03:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Open Second Life client Message-ID: <470a3c520701090003t64d2ee86o2b6f7254d82ba7a@mail.gmail.com> The Second Life client source code has been released yesterday 8 January under the GPL free software license. The announcement on the official Linden blog is titled Embracing the Inevitable: "Releasing the source now is our next invitation to the world to help build this global space for communication, business, and entertainment. We are eager to work with the community and businesses to further our vision of our space". Inevitable in the sense that this was the only survival strategy for Second Life. It enjoys market leadership at this moment, but there are competitors on the horizon completing the development of more open systems e.g. Open Croquet and Multiverse that will eventually permit users developing and running their own virtual worlds on their servers, which is, I think, what most serious operators (game developers, large companies and organizations wishing to host virtual intranets for employees and virtual extranets for partners and clients, media groups) really want. The open-sourcing of the Second Life client is of course discussed everywhere in the blogosphere. Cory Doctorow says: "This is HUGE? by opening up the source code for Second Life, Linden is inviting a competitive marketplace for Second Life hosters. Indeed, they describe a "Second Life grid" of multiple Second Life hosters who interconnect?the way that today's Web consists of a single Web with millions of servers that are all linked together by their users". Only the client (for Windows, Linux and Mac) has been released as open source software at this moment, and Linden retain the ownership of the server software. This means that users can study the client source code and propose modifications and improvements, but cannot run their own private virtual world on their own servers. But CNN Money reportsthat the company's eventual intention is to release an open source version of that software as well, once it has improved security and other core functions. The Second Life Open Source developer websitehas all information on how to participate in the further development of the platform and a wiki editable by registered users. As an avid Second Life user, consultant and "serious" application developer I have made a significant investment of money and time in Second Life, and in the last few months I have often been afraid of losing (part of) my investment. In fact, I was persuaded that if Linden did not start opening the platform very soon, Second Life would fade out with the arrival on the scene of open platforms more suitable for business applications, but I did not think they would start opening the platform so soon. If, as we hope, opening the client software is the first step towards opening the entire platform (or at least licensing the server code under suitable conditions including the right to modify it), then I think serious operators will be much more willing to invest in Second Life: they will know that they will be able to run their own modified versions of the server if they need to do so. If I could run a Second Life server, the first two changes I would do are: permitting users choosing freely their own SL name, and in particular using their real name; and integrating a real-time voice system. So now I think the push of serious operators in Second Life will continue. The most ambitious large company in Second Life that I am aware of at the moment is IBM. One of the things they will do on their megasim (12 islands arranged on a 2x6 grid) is to facilitate connections between current and former IBM people in the "Greater IBM Connection". My understanding is that they also want to explore ways for Second Life (and Virtual Reality in general I believe) to add value to real business. Evidently they are using SL themselves as internal workspace (social networking, meetings, presentations etc.) and my understanding is that they want to find out how it can be used effectively in different industries. MIT Technology Review reports that "IBM, with its worldwide operations, needs a chat medium with which employees can confer with one another. While instant-messaging programs and video conferencing have been available for many years, the creative freedom offered by Second Life has not. Software programmers often go into the Second Life world and outline their projects in a three-dimensional format. Some of the programmers' work is done in their private Second Life facilities, but much of it is open to the public. Ultimately, IBM hopes to lower programmers' travel expenses by conducting meetings and training sessions at the Second Life islands". On a less ambitious scale, the Second Life chapterof the World Transhumanist Association has just passed 100 members. In 2006 the WTA was among the pioneers to start using Second Life for major educational events and conferences, including the mixed-reality Transvision 2006 conference on uvvy island . So far Second Life has been a very useful workspace and outreach tool for transhumanists. With the beginning of the open sourcing process, we are now more confident in continuing our investment in Second Life and plan more ambitious activities for 2007 , including, of course, a mixed-reality event for our conference Transvision 2007 in Chicago. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 9 08:23:48 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 03:23:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com><003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com><003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002d01c733c7$8ead77b0$3f0b4e0c@MyComputer> "Benjamin Goertzel" > it is simply BS that all of "philosophy of science" ever written > is either trivially obvious, or wrong. Easiest way to prove me wrong is to provide a counter example. So tell me one thing, just one thing, that philosophers of science have discovered that is clear, precise, unexpected, and true. > How would you tell the story of the "disproving" Please explain what those quotation marks mean. >of classical gravitation theory and its replacement by Einsteinian > gravitation? Subtle experiments were performed that Einstein could explain and Newton could not. And Newton was not replaced he was supplemented; Newton works just fine most of the time, it was good enough to get us to the moon, and that's why it's still taught. > Consider the mass of the top quark, for example. [.] there is some > artfulness and judgment involved in defining which empirical observations > are to be considered actual observations of the top quark, versus which > are to be considered noise generated by the experimental equipment. It's interesting that you had to go to the very cutting edge of experimental science where there has not been time to sort things out. If everything is culturally related why didn't you discuss the great controversy scientists are having over the mass of the electron, or the mass of a baseball for that matter? I'll tell you why, because such a controversy doesn't exist. John K Clark From max at maxmore.com Tue Jan 9 03:49:18 2007 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:49:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070108190603.02229790@satx.rr.com> References: <7641ddc60701081650n4cdbfd89qcebb9721b9e43c2c@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070108190603.02229790@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200701090346.l093kPbk020700@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> Damien: In affirming a (sophisticated) social constructivism in epistemology, do you mean: (a) our means of perceiving and understanding knowledge are socially constructed or (b) truth itself is a social construction (and not just in obvious cases such as what is "polite") ? And if it's (a), would I be right to suspect that your view is that we can understand and allow for the resulting filtering? (As distinguished from the view that we're permanently and hopelessly locked behind our socially constructed lenses? Max At 07:06 PM 1/8/2007, you wrote: > At 07:50 PM 1/8/2007 -0500, Rafal wrote: > > >I hope we can agree that the one theory of truth that we all honest > >folks here hate heartily is the social constructivist theory. > >Certainly not. Only its usual tabloid parody. > >Damien Broderick > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jan 9 10:10:10 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:10:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Collapse of civilisations linked to monsoon changes Message-ID: <20070109101010.GF6974@leitl.org> http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn10884-collapse-of-civilisations-linked-to-monsoon-changes.html Collapse of civilisations linked to monsoon changes * 11:13 04 January 2007 * NewScientist.com news service * Catherine Brahic The downfall of the one of the greatest Chinese dynasties may have been catalysed by severe changes in climate. The same climate changes may have simultaneously led to the end of the Maya civilisation depicted in Mel Gibson's new film Apocalypto. So says Gerald Haug of the GeoForschungsZentrum in Germany and colleagues, who studied geological records of monsoons over the past 16,000 years. They have found a startling correlation between climate extremes and the fall of two great civilisations: the Tang dynasty in China and the Maya of South America. ?It blew me away," says Haug. The records show that around the time that these civilizations went into decline, they experienced stronger than average winds in the winter and weaker summer monsoon rains. These weak rains would have reduced crop yields. Records of monsoons beyond the last 50 years are difficult to obtain. Looking for signs of monsoon trends in geological records going back thousands of years can help solve this problem. In China, stalagmites provide the best available historical record of summer monsoon rains, says Haug, as more rain increases the amount of water dripping down from the roofs of caves. But until now, there has been no reliable estimate of winter winds. Iron and titanium Haug and his colleagues solved this problem by studying the sediments deposited at the bottom of Lake Hugauang Maar in southeastern China. The sediments are made up primarily of material deposited there by winter monsoon winds because the catchment area is small, meaning very few streams bring in sediments from other sources. As a result, the sediments provide an accurate historical record of the strength of the winter monsoon winds. The researchers looked at iron and titanium levels in a sediment core that was extracted from the lake floor. The oxidation level of the iron told them how much oxygen was present in the lake waters when the sediments were deposited, and therefore how much wind was stirring up the lake surface. Titanium in particles is non-reactive and the quantities accumulated in the layers of sediment provided another measure of wind strength. When they compared the 16,000 years represented by the mud core, the researchers found that years of strong winter winds corresponded very closely to strong summer rains and vice versa. "Our sediment data provides a mirror image to summer records in stalagmites," explains Haug. The researchers believe the only coherent explanation for the summer and winter trends and is a shift in the position of a band of low-pressure that girdles the Earth, known as the inter-tropical convergence zone, or ITCZ. They found that when warm temperatures in the Northern hemisphere indicated a northward shift of the ITCZ, summer monsoon rains were strong and winter monsoon winds were weak. "It seems possible that major shifts in ITCZ catalysed simultaneous events in civilisations on opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean," conclude the researchers in a paper in Nature. Catalysing effect Previously, Haug had shown that the repetitive periods of decline of the Mayan civilisation in Latin America corresponded to dry periods on that continent. The Maya civilisation and Tang dynasty were contemporary and there is a striking similarity between the Chinese and Latin American climate data. These include a general shift towards a drier climate around AD 750 and three very dry periods between then and AD 910, the last of which coincides with both the Maya and the Tang collapse. "I am not a historian," cautions Haug, but "there is a coincidence at least". He says his work is part of "a growing piece of evidence that climate has catalysing effect on societies". Analysing historical monsoon records can be extremely useful in making future climate predictions. For instance, some researchers suggest that strong summer monsoon rains are preceded by weak winter winds. If true, this theory could prove extremely useful in preparing agriculture for a difficult year ahead. Journal reference: Nature (vol 445, p 74) Related Articles * Dirty cloud over India is no help to region's rice farmers * http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19225814.700 * 09 December 2006 * Heavy rainstorms more frequent in Indian monsoon * http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn10701 * 30 November 2006 * No Sahara desert, no Egyptian dynasty * http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19125624.500 * 29 July 2006 Weblinks * Gerald Haug, GeoForschungsZentrum * http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb3/pb33/staff/haug/index_en.html * Intertropical convergence zone * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITCZ * Nature * http://www.nature.com -- 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 15:10:31 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:10:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PBS to provide new science programs Message-ID: Much of what appears on PBS in science categories I enjoy. PBS is putting up for grabs the opportunity to preview and vote on some possible new shows. See: http://www.pbs.org/science/ /. discussion: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/08/2239219 Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 9 16:02:55 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:02:55 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Kucinich Plan for Iraq Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070109092217.02f5f198@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Below is a message sent to me from a professor at a university I am affiliated with. I have not read the letter yet, but if anyone wants to dig in and take a look to see if there is a substantial resolve to Iraq, please do. I'll be reading it today as well. (I have no prior knowledge of Dennis Kucinich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich ) As you know, my goal is to discover effective future oriented ways to deal with issues outside political party lines in a more heterarchical stigmergic system. If you find any points in the letter below to be substantive, let's discuss. >Dear Friends, > >In November of 2006, after an October upsurge in violence in Iraq, >the American people moved decisively to reject Republican rule, >principally because of the conduct of the war. Democratic leaders >well understand we regained control of the Congress because of the >situation in Iraq. However, two months later, the Congress is still >searching for a plan around which it can unite to hasten the end of >US involvement in Iraq and the return home of 140,000 US troops. > >There is a compelling need for a new direction in Iraq, one that >recognizes the plight of the people of Iraq, the false and illegal >basis of the United States war against Iraq, the realities on the >ground which make a military resolution of the conflict unrealistic >and the urgent responsibility of the United States, which caused the >chaos, to use the process of diplomacy and international law to >achieve stability in Iraq, a process which will establish peace and >stability in Iraq allow our troops to return home with dignity. > >The Administration is preparing to escalate the conflict. They intend >to increase troop numbers to unprecedented levels, without >establishing an ending date for the so-called troop surge. By >definition, this escalation means a continuation of the occupation, >more troop and civilian casualties, more anger toward the US, more >support for the insurgency, more instability in Iraq and in the >region, and prolonged civil war at a time when there is a general >agreement in the world community that the solution in Iraq must be >political not military. Iraq is now a training ground for insurgents >who practice against our troops. > >What is needed is a comprehensive political process. And the decision >is not President Bush's alone to make. > >Congress, as a coequal branch of government has a responsibility to >assist in the initiation of this process. Congress, under Article 1, >Section 8 of the US Constitution has the war-making power. Congress >appropriates funds for the war. Congress does not dispense with its >obligation to the American people simply by opposing a troop surge in >Iraq. > >There are 140,000 troops remaining in Iraq right now. What about >them? When will they come home? Why would we leave those troops in >Iraq when we have the money to bring them home? Soon the President >will ask for more money for the war. Why would Congress appropriate >more money to keep the troops in Iraq through the end of President >Bush's term, at a total cost of upwards of two trillion dollars and >thousands of more troop casualties, when military experts say there >is no military solution? Our soldiers stand for us in the field, we >must to stand for them in our legislature by bringing them home. > >It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and >yet continues to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault >line through our politics, undermining public trust in the political >process and in those elected to represent the people. If you oppose >the war, then do not vote to fund it. > >If you have money which can be used to bring the troops home or to >prosecute the war, do not say you want to bring the troops home while >you appropriate money in a supplemental to keep them in Iraq fighting >a war that cannot be won militarily. This is why the Administration >should be notified now that Congress will not approve of the >appropriations request of up to $160 billion in the spring for the >purposes of continuing the occupation and the war. Continuing to fund >the war is not a plan. It would represent the continuation of >disaster. > >The US sent our troops into Iraq without a clear mission. We created >a financial, military and moral dilemma for our nation and now we are >talking about the Iraq war as our problem. The Iraqis are forgotten. >Their country has been destroyed: 650,000 casualties, [based on the >Lancet Report which surveyed casualties from March of 2003 to July of >2006] the shredding of the social fabric of the nation, civil war, >lack of access to food, shelter, electricity, clean drinking water >and health care because this Administration, with the active >participation of the Congress, authorized a war without reason, >without conscience, without international law. > >The US thinks in terms of solving our own military, strategic, >logistical, and political problems. The US can determine how to solve >our problems, but the Iraqi people will have problems far into the >future. This requires an intensive focus on the processes needed to >stabilize Iraq. If you solve the Iraqi problem you solve the US >problem. Any comprehensive plan for Iraq must take into account as a >primary matter the conditions and the needs of the Iraqi people, >while providing our nation with a means of righting grievous wrongs >and taking steps to regain US credibility and felicity within the >world community. > >I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns >of a majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its >work, I will present this plan to leadership and members as the only >viable alternative to the Bush Administration's policy of continued >occupation and escalation. Congress must know that it cannot and must >not stand by and watch our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians die. > >These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan: > >1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases >and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and >the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of >permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops >and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been >inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have >supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where >parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for >negotiations towards peaceful settlement. > >2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops >and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in >bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other >DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the >next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, >(which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while >a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made >for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force. > >3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United >States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. >The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, >with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the >Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi >subcontractors. > >Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored >in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the >international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US >contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and >federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of >accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do >not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, >cries out for justice. > >It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished >electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into >the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in >Baghdad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid >conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private >security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag >operations must be investigated by an international tribunal. > >4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a >security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a >process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the >international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come >and help us implement it." The international community may have an >interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the >implementation of failed US policy. > >A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation >will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about >the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, >through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have >interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent >members of the Security Council and the European community, and all >Arab nations. > >The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are >necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a >shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the >people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to >participate. > >It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in >Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the >civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the >region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a >breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN >and countries of the region. The regional conference must include >Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. > >5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move >in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an >indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US >is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international >organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to >authorize troops. > >The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political >consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for >the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that >will end the occupation and begin the transition to international >peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the >time the US announces the intention to end the occupation. > >The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, >by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the >peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim >populations. The international security force, under UN direction, >will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of >handling its own security. The UN can field an international security >and peacekeeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape >unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a >political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi >parties. Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed. > >According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the >Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about >twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly >because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and >governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less >than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is >not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not >give them troops. > >6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process >of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized >with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties >who can create, participate in and affect the process of >reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the >creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth >and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a >desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and >that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join >the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with >capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting >power relationships. > >For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be >regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with >religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in >Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the >majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they >are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they >have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay >for the sins of Saddam. > >A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way >to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is >essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence >between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. > >But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when >there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get >their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as >religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior >Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been >displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, >the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation. > >It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or >several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. >The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win >because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US >occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an >accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and >support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with >those who are seen as Baathists. > >The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, >boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much >more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave >they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge >impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only >sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All >factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought >together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and >Iranians. > >7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program >in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public >facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to >local Iraqis. > >8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation >to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant >reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and >emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special >programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives >of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation. > >9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US >invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of >Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi >oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts >to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization. > >Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be >a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current >Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central >government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution >of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be >established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a >fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms >established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq. > >10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food >and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and >occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of >food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to >meet their own needs. > >11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore >Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of >the IMF or the World Bank. > >12. International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of >truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and >the people of Iraq. In 2002, I led the effort in the House of >Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to >war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war >resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold >relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who >today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four >years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is >workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, >expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and >foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with >honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi >civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with >the world. > >Thank you, > >Dennis J Kucinich > > > >------ End of Forwarded Message 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 15:50:44 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:50:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:58:12 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > But I'm not just picking on you, I think that is largely the case for all > philosophers of science. The thing is, if they were really onto > something, if they really did have a better understanding of the > scientific method then mere scientists you'd think they wouldhave made > major contributions to our understanding of how theuniverse works just > like those silly scientists have. But I can't thinkof a single > philosopher of science that has done that. Isn't that strange? Ernst Mach comes to mind as a philosopher of science who made major contributions to our understanding of how the universe works. As one biographer put it: "[Mach was] an Austrian physicist and philosopher who established important principles of optics, mechanics, and wave dynamics and who supported the view that all knowledge is a conceptual organization of the data of sensory experience (or observation)." http://www.erraticimpact.com/~analytic/mach.htm Mach's influence as a philosopher is also very relevant to this subject of probability. Richard von Mises, famous for developing the frequency theory of probability, considered himself a "devoted disciple of Mach" (his own words) and according to Gillies (2000), "Von Mises in his development of probability theory follows exactly the pattern of Mach's development of mechanics." As a philosopher Mach was a empirical positivist, meaning that he considered it meaningless to speak of things that cannot be verified empirically. Mach's positivist attitude was so strong that he even refused to acknowledge the existence of atoms on the grounds that no one had ever seen one! The frequency theory of von Mises is true to that same philosophy of science; according to frequentists it is meaningless to speak of the probability of an outcome except in terms of the empirical frequency of that outcome in a collection of observations. -gts From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 9 16:49:22 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:49:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <002d01c733c7$8ead77b0$3f0b4e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <002d01c733c7$8ead77b0$3f0b4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701090849p359b1b68te6bea1b545686074@mail.gmail.com> > > it is simply BS that all of "philosophy of science" ever written > > is either trivially obvious, or wrong. > > Easiest way to prove me wrong is to provide a counter example. So tell me > one thing, just one thing, that philosophers of science have discovered that > is clear, precise, unexpected, and true. For example: The discovery that complex scientific theories are extremely rarely proved WRONG, but nearly always only proved AWKWARD or INELEGANT for explaining certain classes of phenomena. > > How would you tell the story of the "disproving" > > Please explain what those quotation marks mean. See above. > >of classical gravitation theory and its replacement by Einsteinian > > gravitation? > > Subtle experiments were performed that Einstein could explain and Newton > could not. This is not correct, as any thoughtful historical analysis would show. Rather, experiments were performed for which Einstein had a more elegant, less awkward explanation than Newton. For instance, there are plenty of ways to explain the precession of Mercury's orbit within Newtonian mechanics. But, they are "hacky" compared to the elegant explanation within General Relativity theory. > > Consider the mass of the top quark, for example. [.] there is some > > artfulness and judgment involved in defining which empirical observations > > are to be considered actual observations of the top quark, versus which > > are to be considered noise generated by the experimental equipment. > > It's interesting that you had to go to the very cutting edge of experimental > science where there has not been time to sort things out. If everything is > culturally related why didn't you discuss the great controversy scientists > are having over the mass of the electron, or the mass of a baseball for that > matter? I'll tell you why, because such a controversy doesn't exist. There are many examples, I was writing an email not a textbook so I just gave one. A similar issue arose with Galileo's observations through his telescope, way back when. There was no agreement on which of his observations were real and which were artifacts of the terrible telescope.... This of course was the cutting-edge back then. Scientific progress was made via Galileo interpreting observations in the manner guided by his theory... It is certainly true that the theory-dependence of observations is a more dramatic phenomenon at the cutting edge of science than in the context of well-accepted science. But the phenomenon always exists, it's just a matter of degree... -- Ben From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 9 17:09:58 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:09:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <002d01c733c7$8ead77b0$3f0b4e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <002d01c733c7$8ead77b0$3f0b4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109105648.023a13c8@satx.rr.com> At 03:23 AM 1/9/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > > it is simply BS that all of "philosophy of science" ever written > > is either trivially obvious, or wrong. > >Easiest way to prove me wrong is to provide a counter example. So tell me >one thing, just one thing, that philosophers of science have discovered that >is clear, precise, unexpected, and true. Let's leave "true" to one side, because it's a diet of worms. The example I have several times offered to John, either here or perhaps on SL4, is Karl Popper's model of scientific conjecture and (attempted) refutation. Because it's a piece of methodological advice, it can't be true or false, only fruitful or wasteful. But it seemed so astonishing, counter-intuitive and productive as a guiding principle in hypothesis and experiment to Nobelists John Eccles, Macfarlane Burnet, Peter Medawar and Peter C. Doherty ("I like complexity, and am delighted by the unexpected. Ideas interest me. I was influened early on by reading Arthur Koestler and Edward de Bono, and more recently by the writings of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.") that they've all sung its praises. Of course, this might be dismissed as nothing better than an appeal to authority. Damien Broderick From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 9 17:36:23 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 12:36:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com><003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com><003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com><002d01c733c7$8ead77b0$3f0b4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701090849p359b1b68te6bea1b545686074@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002901c73414$b92ccde0$df044e0c@MyComputer> "Benjamin Goertzel" > complex scientific theories are extremely rarely proved WRONG, but nearly > always only proved AWKWARD or INELEGANT [.] experiments were performed for > which Einstein had a more elegant, less awkward explanation than Newton. Elegance be damned. Unstable particles last longer when they are moving close to the speed of light than when they are moving more slowly, you can measure it in the lab; Einstein predicted this phenomena, Newton did not. John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 17:49:44 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:49:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:48:01 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > 4) > Note that up until the last century or so, many eminent scientists > **were** also philosophers of science. Yes, as in the example I've given of Ernst Mach (1838-1916). I suppose Mach was among the last of a dying breed of scientist/philosophers. Einstein too was something of a philosopher, one who incidentally disagreed vehemently with Mach's philosophy. But I'm sure you already know this. I should mention also to John that were it not for the influence of Ernst Mach on real nuts-and-bolts science, Speed Racer would have driven a different car and had a different initial on his helmet. -gts From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 9 18:37:43 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:37:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com><003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com><003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> "gts" > Einstein too was something of a philosopher Lots of good scientists wax philosophic when they get older, but not when they were young and productive; they had better things to do. The best way to understand how science works is to do science; otherwise you're just dancing about architecture. John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 19:34:20 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:34:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:37:43 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > Lots of good scientists wax philosophic when they get older, but not > when they were young and productive; Somehow I think Einstein would disagree, at least in his own case, though I don't mean to paint Einstein necessarily as an accomplished philosopher separate from his physics. Concerning Einstein and Mach, I found this interesting tidbit on a (bizarre) anti-Einstein webpage... "Einstein initially adored Mach, and asked for his guidance and help. When it became known, after Mach's death, that Mach rejected Einstein and his views, Einstein ridiculed Mach." http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/modusoperandi.htm The author seems to be making the rather nasty accusation that Einstein criticized Mach's views (presumably his instrumentalist philosophy) not because Mach's views were absurd to him, but out of spite -- because Mach had rejected Einstein's theories. But I very much doubt that was the reason. As I understand it, Mach had for many years maintained that theoretical constructs should not be granted reality status; that scientific theories were mere instruments for predicting empirical measurements. Einstein on the other hand was always a realist wanting to know what was really there beyond the world of appearances, so Mach's disagreement should have been no surprise to him. The point worth making here is that this was a question of *philosophy of science*, specifically Einstein's Realism vs Mach's Instrumentalism. It seems Mach's philosophy blocked his understanding of Einstein, and that Einstein's philosophy enabled him to see deeper into the nature of reality. -gts From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 9 20:06:34 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:06:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <002901c73414$b92ccde0$df044e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <002d01c733c7$8ead77b0$3f0b4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701090849p359b1b68te6bea1b545686074@mail.gmail.com> <002901c73414$b92ccde0$df044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701091206s3c4d4a1bid3243b0a2a20d5e7@mail.gmail.com> That is a prediction of Special Relativity, not General Relativity. On 1/9/07, John K Clark wrote: > "Benjamin Goertzel" > > > complex scientific theories are extremely rarely proved WRONG, but nearly > > always only proved AWKWARD or INELEGANT [.] experiments were performed for > > which Einstein had a more elegant, less awkward explanation than Newton. > > Elegance be damned. Unstable particles last longer when they are moving > close to the speed of light than when they are moving more slowly, you can > measure it in the lab; Einstein predicted this phenomena, Newton did not. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 9 20:08:02 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:08:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701091208k40b3ef1ej73d4fb0843b8482@mail.gmail.com> Fine, but the "naive realist" philosophy you are promoting goes against all I have seen in my own experience actually doing science, and working with other scientists. -- Ben G On 1/9/07, John K Clark wrote: > "gts" > > > Einstein too was something of a philosopher > > Lots of good scientists wax philosophic when they get older, but not when > they were young and productive; they had better things to do. The best way > to understand how science works is to do science; otherwise you're just > dancing about architecture. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From moses2k at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 20:58:45 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:58:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Background, was Signing up for cryonics :) Message-ID: <3aff9e290701091258g1650ec76g859004525cd5bf48@mail.gmail.com> From: Keith Henson >Hi back. >Can you tell us a bit about your background? Well, I'm 24, from Minnesota, and I suppose I first learned about transhumanism about a year & a half ago by linking to AGIRI while researching game AI. I've been lurking SL4, agi-list, and ext-chat for awhile now. Since reading Yudkowsky's LOGI some time ago, I'd decided to study AI, cog-sci, & the rest in hope of eventually being able to help with an AGI/FAI project. I have some small programming experience, and my favorite color is undefinedvalue. I also play the piano & draw pictures...on paper. Here's a sample of the latter: picasaweb.google.com/Moses2k Here's to living in interesting times. -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 9 22:32:57 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:32:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109163054.02276218@satx.rr.com> At 01:37 PM 1/9/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: >The best way >to understand how science works is to do science; otherwise you're just >dancing about architecture. Ha ha. Shouldn't that have been "babeling about architecture"? Still no gracious acknowledgement of my 4 great scientists influenced by a philosopher of science? Damien Broderick From hibbert at mydruthers.com Tue Jan 9 23:28:29 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:28:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109163054.02276218@satx.rr.com> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109163054.02276218@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45A4251D.3060200@mydruthers.com> > John K Clark wrote: >>> The best way to understand how science works is to do science; >>> otherwise you're just dancing about architecture. Damien Broderick replied > Ha ha. Shouldn't that have been "babeling about architecture"? No, it's a reference to a well-known[1], but apparently untraceable[2] quote: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." None of the online quotation sources gave a source. Chris [1] Well, I recognized it anyway. [2] http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=461815 -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org http://mydruthers.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 10 00:09:13 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:09:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <45A4251D.3060200@mydruthers.com> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109163054.02276218@satx.rr.com> <45A4251D.3060200@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109180607.0239c038@satx.rr.com> At 03:28 PM 1/9/2007 -0800, Chris Hibbert wrote: > >>> The best way to understand how science works is to do science; > >>> otherwise you're just dancing about architecture. > >...it's a reference to a well-known... >quote: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." Interesting! By a curious anti-almost-coincidence, my doctoral dissertation was titled "Frozen Music", from the famous Goethe remark "Architecture is frozen music." Damien Broderick From ben at goertzel.org Wed Jan 10 00:18:13 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:18:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <45A4251D.3060200@mydruthers.com> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109163054.02276218@satx.rr.com> <45A4251D.3060200@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701091618t298aa90esb532cf417f562b75@mail.gmail.com> > No, it's a reference to a well-known[1], but apparently untraceable[2] > quote: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." None > of the online quotation sources gave a source. That reminds me of a quote by Frank Zappa, about people who write about rock music: "Definition of rock journalism: People who can't write, doing interviews with people who can't think, in order to prepare articles for people who can't read." [from the book, The Real Frank Zappa] ;-) -- Ben From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 10 01:01:04 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:01:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumans in fiction Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109185500.02281750@satx.rr.com> A topic that comes up here now and then is early uses of "transhuman" in the sense we accept. I just stumbled upon a rather good 1978 sf anthology, introduced by cryonics pioneer Robert Ettinger and edited by my upstate New York pal Jack Dann (who now lives in Australia), titled IMMORTAL: Short Novels of the Transhuman Future (Harper & Rowe). Stories by Tom Disch, Gene Wolfe, Pam Sargent and Gene Zebrowski. Nearly 30 years ago... Damien Broderick From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Jan 10 02:08:16 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 21:08:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? Message-ID: <380-2200713102816155@M2W023.mail2web.com> From: Benjamin Goertzel >That reminds me of a quote by Frank Zappa, about people who write >about rock music:> > >"Definition of rock journalism: People who can't write, doing >interviews with people who can't think, in order to prepare articles >for people who can't read." [from the book, The Real Frank Zappa] Why are so many Rock Star jokes one-liners? So the rest of the band can understand them. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From fortean1 at mindspring.com Wed Jan 10 02:52:49 2007 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:52:49 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [forteana] Re: Easter Island not a human-created disaster? Message-ID: <23479061.1168397570017.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > >On 1/9/07, Terry Colvin fnarded: > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jared Diamond made Easter Island the main plank in his book about >> >> collapsing societies. So if it is removed, then his case is certainly >> >> much weaker. > >He certainly didn't do any such thing. > >> > >> >You're not giving Diamond justice. He wrote several books, most >> >notably "The Third Chimpanzee", "Guns, Germs and Steel" and >> >"Collapse". The first book about how we became human, and contains >> >a discussion in how we're similiar and how we're different from >> >being just a third subspecies of Pan. The second book tries to >> >explain how Europeans conquered the rest of the world instead of the other >> >way round (very roughly, I've only dipped in the book yet due to lack of time). >> >"Collapse" (which is subtitled "How socities choose to fail or *succeed*" >> >(emphasis mine)). It covers contemporary Montana, Easter Island, >> >Pitcairn and Henderson Islands, Anasazis, Mayas, Vikings, Norse >> >Greenland, New Guinea, Japan, Rwanda, The Dominican Republic >> >and Haiti, China, Australia. Quite a lot for a book of only 560 pages. >> > >> >So, no, the Easter Island is not his "main plank", and he's >> >not claiming what you say he does. >> > >> >> The effect of climate changes (drought, floods, plagues, disease, >> >> etc.) on early human societies is a hidden history that is only now >> > >> >Which happens to be one of the main points of Collapse, incidentally. > >No it isn't. > >One of the main points of Collapse is that human societies collapse >for all sorts of reasons, many of which are beyond the control of the >societies in question. >The other point is that even when there *are* things which a society >might control to prevent its collapse, sometimes they don't, for >various reasons, often cultural. >The Greenland Norse is a good example; they could have survived by >adopting Inuit hunting and housing techniques, but had they done that, >they would no longer have been Norse, they would have become Inuit, >and that wasn't a sacrifice they were willing to make. >Easter Island's collapse was caused by several things, but the main >one was deforestation, partly caused by people cutting down trees, and >partly by rats gnawing the seeds to no new trees grew. >Jared Diamond mentions the gnawed seeds and the rats in his book, so >not only does this news not invalidate his conclusion - it's not even >news. From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 14:31:59 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:31:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <62c14240701100631n596242ffo279741c55024b9c5@mail.gmail.com> On 1/9/07, John K Clark wrote: > "gts" > > > Einstein too was something of a philosopher > > Lots of good scientists wax philosophic when they get older, but not when > they were young and productive; they had better things to do. The best way > to understand how science works is to do science; otherwise you're just > dancing about architecture. What science do you do? You appear to be defending pure science from the adulteration of philosophy of science. I am not clear on what your real point is. Perhaps you feel you have stated it so clearly that we should have no trouble understanding, yet you continue to defend your point. disclaimer: Maybe it is because you often take such an extreme position that I feel compelled to antagonize you. I hope you appreciate this in the vein in which it is intended. From lucioc at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 14:48:48 2007 From: lucioc at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=FAcio_de_Souza_Coelho?=) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:48:48 -0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumans in fiction In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109185500.02281750@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070109185500.02281750@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/9/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > A topic that comes up here now and then is early uses of "transhuman" > in the sense we accept. I just stumbled upon a rather good 1978 sf > anthology, introduced by cryonics pioneer Robert Ettinger and edited > by my upstate New York pal Jack Dann (who now lives in Australia), > titled IMMORTAL: Short Novels of the Transhuman Future (Harper & > Rowe). Stories by Tom Disch, Gene Wolfe, Pam Sargent and Gene > Zebrowski. Nearly 30 years ago... (...) And there are many transhuman characters created earlier than that, but they were not called "transhumans" yet. :) From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 16:22:57 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:22:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The PBS show 22nd Century takes you to the forefront of technology Message-ID: <470a3c520701100822y4919be5es17abd5b95dbeba7b@mail.gmail.com> KurzweilAI: 22nd Century is an innovative new PBS series about technological advances taking place today that within our lifetimes will significantly change the way humans live and interact. I think it is very important to communicate realistic visions of possible future scenarios based on scientific speculations to television audiences, with a future-friendly or at least not unfriendly attitude. Unfortunately I cannot watch PBS from Europe but the 22nd Century websites has long streaming videoclips. On Youtube there is a 22nd Century groupof videoclips contributed by users. The 22nd Century websites has interesting polls - at this moment 50% of participants answer the question "What would you rather see a show about?" with "The potential of living forever". The KurzweilAI website is one of the futurist resources they list. In an interview Ramez Naam, the author of More Than Human , discusses the implications of technically enhancing the human body: "We have always, as long as we have existed as humanity, we've always looked for ways to make ourselves smarter, make ourselves live longer, give ourselves more physical abilities. That's why we invented writing. That's why we picked up sticks. That's why we invented the use of fire. We're always looking for these ways to improve our lives, and improve our control over who we are, and our environment. That's what it means to be human? The future is about gaining control over our genes, gaining control over our bodies, gaining control over our brains and minds, and being able to alter them so we can look the way we want to, so we can be stronger, and faster, so that we can work for decades, or maybe centuries more, so we can restore youth to people who are aged, and so we can alter our thoughts, change our personalities, become smarter, communicate things back and forth, from brain to brain". >From the website: Ever wonder what the world is going to be like in the future? Will people routinely live to see their 250th birthdays? Will personal computers be smarter than us? (Or more personable?) Will machines shrink so small they can make repairs inside a human cell? Science fantasy or futuristic nightmare? The PBS show 22nd Century takes you to the forefront of technology and hears from people on the cusp of a scientific revolution. In the first episode we will meet a young man who was rendered unable to communicate with the outside world due to a devastating automobile accident. Surgeons implanted an electrode in his brain and it has allowed him to break out of his isolation and communicate just by thinking about what he wants to say. In another segment a leading neurophysicist tells how he has developed bundles of wires thinner than spider webs that can be inserted into the blood vessels of human brains. The series is hosted by Robin Robinson, a Chicago-based journalist, who is joined by two virtual co-hosts, each with insightful and often conflicting viewpoints about the merits of this new technology. One is an actor playing Aldous Huxley, the late author of Brave New World, who worried about the dehumanizing consequences of scientific discoveries. The other is Orlanda Bell, a time-traveling visitor from the future, who represents the best-case scenario of these technological advancements. Is this a future that will benefit the human race? Or will we lose all sense of individuality? Find out on the premiere episode of the 22nd Century. The program is one of three science pilots airing on PBS in January; only one pilot will move forward to become a series. Watch online or on-air and then tell us what you think of the program using the feedback form below. [Perhaps if enough people write they will choose 22nd Century. My comment on the feedback form: I just watched the videoclips and read the intervews. Great show! This is a good example of "using the power of noncommercial television, the Internet and other media to enrich the lives of all Americans through quality programs and education services that inform, inspire and delight" as in PBS' mission statement]. In the premiere episode, guests arrive from the future, past and present to guide you through a quirky tour of the "World Wide Mind," an intriguing theory that proposes that in the future our brains will be wired up so that we can communicate with the world effortlessly and instantly. Science fantasy or futuristic nightmare? Watch the show and decide for yourself! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Wed Jan 10 17:42:18 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:42:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com><003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com><003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com><002d01c733c7$8ead77b0$3f0b4e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701090849p359b1b68te6bea1b545686074@mail.gmail.com><002901c73414$b92ccde0$df044e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701091206s3c4d4a1bid3243b0a2a20d5e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004c01c734de$bd2c4e50$22084e0c@MyComputer> Me: > Elegance be damned. Unstable particles last longer when they are moving > close to the speed of light than when they are moving more slowly, you can > measure it in the lab; Einstein predicted this phenomena, Newton did not. "Benjamin Goertzel" >That is a prediction of Special Relativity, not General Relativity. True, but I don't quite see your point, but if you want an example from General Relativity I will give you one. A clock on the first floor of a building will run more slowly than an identical clock on the second floor because it is closer to the Earth's center and gravity is a little stronger there, so time slows down a little more. That's been measured in the lab too, and Einstein predicted it and Newton did not. Elegance be damned. John K Clark From scerir at libero.it Wed Jan 10 17:55:31 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:55:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] R: what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701101820.l0AIKHCb006254@andromeda.ziaspace.com> As for me, I confess a modest bias in the direction of objectivism and the correspondence theory. -gts Something that might interest you. A famous paper by David Mermin, the Ithaca interpretation, in which he developes a sort of 'objective probability' in quantum mechanics. As you know there are several problems there, ie because of the statistical interpretation (a quantum state only represents an ensemble of similarly prepared states, a strange position this one because it seems to introduce a sort of hidden variables). As you can see Mermin, following Popper's 'propensity' and Heisenberg's 'potentia', seems to think that a single quantum state may also represent itself, and not just an ensemble. This sort of ontological position (different from Einstein's realism and his 'ignorance' interpretation) is interesting since Mermin is not so far from Copenhagen. From scerir at libero.it Wed Jan 10 18:01:22 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:01:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] R: what is probability? In-Reply-To: <004c01c734de$bd2c4e50$22084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <200701101826.l0AIQMs9000238@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I forgot the link (Mermin, Ithaca Interpretation) http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013 S. From jonkc at att.net Wed Jan 10 18:16:51 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:16:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com><003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com><003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com><005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109163054.02276218@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <007801c734e3$8a826390$22084e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > Ha ha. Shouldn't that have been "babeling about architecture"? I could be wrong but I had thought the phrase "dancing about architecture" had been attributed to Picasso and he was talking about art criticism; Chris thinks it was somebody talking about music criticism, and he may be right. > Still no gracious acknowledgement of my 4 great scientists influenced by a > philosopher of science? Ok, I graciously acknowledge your quotations, but let me provide one too. The brutally honest 98 year old Bertrand Russell said: "When too stupid for math, I switched to philosophy, and when too stupid for philosophy, to politics." John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Wed Jan 10 18:52:22 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:52:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <004c01c734de$bd2c4e50$22084e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <002d01c733c7$8ead77b0$3f0b4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701090849p359b1b68te6bea1b545686074@mail.gmail.com> <002901c73414$b92ccde0$df044e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701091206s3c4d4a1bid3243b0a2a20d5e7@mail.gmail.com> <004c01c734de$bd2c4e50$22084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701101052s171f9777g1079a504e3e7b4fc@mail.gmail.com> Yes, but there are many theories that can explain that particular observation, some of which do not involve curved spacetime and operate within the general Newtonian perspective. I don't have the references handy but I have read this work years ago... The reason GR is favored over these alternative explanations of the observation is its conceptual and mathematical elegance, not the fact that it was formulated prior to the observation being made... BTW the point of view I am giving here is considered commonsense among nearly all theoretical physicists, so this is really not a matter of "philosophers versus scientists." It's a matter of your naive realist view of science, versus an accurate portrayal of science as a collective human activity. ben > >That is a prediction of Special Relativity, not General Relativity. > > True, but I don't quite see your point, but if you want an example from > General Relativity I will give you one. A clock on the first floor of a > building will run more slowly than an identical clock on the second floor > because it is closer to the Earth's center and gravity is a little stronger > there, so time slows down a little more. That's been measured in the > lab too, and Einstein predicted it and Newton did not. Elegance be > damned. > > 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 Wed Jan 10 19:04:12 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:04:12 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <007801c734e3$8a826390$22084e0c@MyComputer> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109163054.02276218@satx.rr.com> <007801c734e3$8a826390$22084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070110125037.021efa60@satx.rr.com> At 01:16 PM 1/10/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > > Still no gracious acknowledgement of my 4 great scientists influenced by a > > philosopher of science? > >Ok, I graciously acknowledge your quotations, but let me provide one too. >The brutally honest 98 year old Bertrand Russell said: > >"When too stupid for math, I switched to philosophy, and when too stupid >for philosophy, to politics." But that's an entirely different point. You suggested that no scientist was ever usefully influenced by philosophy of science ("Easiest way to prove me wrong is to provide a counter example"); I and gts produced several counter examples of scientists who were so guided. But even if you had quoted 1,000,001 scientists who swore they'd never been influenced by philosophy of science, that still wouldn't support your original claim. (BTW, and trivially, I doubt Russell ever used the term "math".) Damien Broderick From ben at goertzel.org Wed Jan 10 19:19:47 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:19:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070110125037.021efa60@satx.rr.com> References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070109163054.02276218@satx.rr.com> <007801c734e3$8a826390$22084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070110125037.021efa60@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701101119q2c2b272x773b475059c9dbdd@mail.gmail.com> > >The brutally honest 98 year old Bertrand Russell said: > > > >"When too stupid for math, I switched to philosophy, and when too stupid > >for philosophy, to politics." Personally, I switched from math to philosophy, and then BACK to math and computer science, to create theorems and software systems based on my philosophical conclusions ;-) -- Ben G From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 10 19:24:38 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:24:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <007801c734e3$8a826390$22084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John K Clark wrote: > The brutally honest 98 year old Bertrand Russell said: > > "When too stupid for math, I switched to philosophy, and when > too stupid for philosophy, to politics." One might note that this wise observation corresponds with increasing contextual awareness. In my experience as a technical manager, a key trait distinguishing younger from older techs, engineers and scientists was the younger often had the "obvious" answer while the oldsters were still considering the problem. - Jef From amara at amara.com Wed Jan 10 20:25:49 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:25:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] comet McNaught Message-ID: comet McNaught is more than 'naked eye' now. (It is the brightest comet in the last 30 years) http://skytonight.com/observing/home/5133461.html <- how to find Thursday will probably be the last night to see it, at sunset. Wednesday night at sunset for the North Americans will be best. 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 Wed Jan 10 21:24:11 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:24:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070110125037.021efa60@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <657241.76770.qm@web36511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John, What respectable scientist in all of human history do you suppose was not guided by some philosophy of science? -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 21:24:30 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:24:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070110125037.021efa60@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <754707.34750.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> John, What respectable scientist in all of human history do you suppose was not guided by some philosophy of science? -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 10 22:55:16 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:55:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <62c14240701100631n596242ffo279741c55024b9c5@mail.gmail.com > References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com> <003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com> <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com> <005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer> <62c14240701100631n596242ffo279741c55024b9c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070110164951.0257b1c0@satx.rr.com> At 09:31 AM 1/10/2007 -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: >On 1/9/07, John K Clark wrote: > > The best way > > to understand how science works is to do science; otherwise you're just > > dancing about architecture. > >What science do you do? Since JKC hasn't replied: According to the 2nd edition of that wonderful book THE SPIKE, in 2001 John was self-described as "51, electrical engineer and "terminal bookworm" (p. 352). Electrical engineering is applied science/technology, so presumably the theories its cookbooks rely on are not especially controversial these days. Damien Broderick From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Jan 11 03:52:31 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:52:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times review: Richard A. Clarke's BREAKPOINT Message-ID: <23726151.112791168487551430.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Interesting and amusing review. The reviewer, Tim Rutten, is the Times' media columnist/commentator. Richard A. Clarke is the former national security official who went on the record outing the administration's failed efforts re: 9-11. This book involves transhumanism and cyberwar and Clarke says his fiction "is meant to be predictive." Rutten takes him to task for using his expertise in both fiction and consulting services and profiting from both. Hmmmm.... PJ http://www.calendarlive.com/books/cl-et-rutten10jan10,0,6331791,print.story?coll=cl-books-top-right BOOK REVIEW 'Breakpoint' by Richard A. Clarke Evil-doers target the world's digital nervous system. By Tim Rutten Times Staff Writer January 10, 2007 IT'S hard to know precisely what to make of writers like Richard A. Clarke, which makes his rather tedious new techno-thriller worth a few minutes of rumination. Clarke, you may recall, is a longtime national security official who served presidents Clinton and George W. Bush as special White House advisor for counter-terrorism. He was in that post on Sept. 11 and subsequently resigned to write a whistle-blowing memoir, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," in which he alleged that both the Clinton and Bush administrations had insufficiently heeded warnings about Al Qaeda and other terrorist threats spawned by Islamic fanaticism. Clarke's 20 hours of testimony to the commission investigating 9/11 were both informative and controversial. Pro-administration and neoconservative critics attacked him for errors of fact and what they characterized as politically partisan analysis. Others hailed his candor, pointing out that he was part of that tiny handful of senior analysts willing to flatly tell a White House bent on attacking Iraq that there was absolutely no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or the attacks on New York and Washington. It also emerged, however, that he had been less forthcoming about his role in arranging for members of the extended Bin Laden family to leave the United States immediately after 9/11. What emerged, in other words, was a picture of a senior government official with long service in an arcane but critical field where serious-minded public servants sometimes are right and sometimes are wrong, sometimes are courageous and sometimes are expedient. Clarke followed his memoir with another nonfiction book ("Defeating Jihadists: A Blueprint for Action") and a utilitarian, quasi-roman ? clef espionage novel, "The Scorpion's Gate," a bestseller, like the memoir. So far, so lucrative. Now we have "Breakpoint," a techno-thriller in the Tom Clancy mode, interlaced with intimations of science fiction. In fact, the narrative, which is set in 2012, is studded with characters who routinely allude to such classic science-fiction authors as Robert A. Heinlein and Isaac Asimov, as well as to the "Star Wars," "Matrix" and "Star Trek" films. The author has so little writerly control of his characters that it's unclear whether the references are there to establish aesthetic pedigree or to suggest a plausible frame of reference for the people Clarke has created. One suspects the former, since you've probably eaten matzo that wasn't quite as flat or dry as these fictional folks. The narrative structure will be familiar to early Clancy fans ? a multipart setup with quick cinematic cuts between people, times and places noted in the style of cable headers instead of chapter headings. There's a wealth of technical and scientific data standing in for description. As is the convention with this genre, it's balanced by what might be called faux detail. No sooner do we meet the British ambassador to the United States than he pours "a snifter of Napoleon cognac." The cigar-smoking U.S. homeland security chief exhales a cloud of "Cuban smoke." (Apparently the embargo on Cuban tobacco is over.) When the author ventures beyond that sort of technical or superficial detail, things go decidedly south. One of the protagonists, for example, invokes the ideas of the late Jesuit paleontologist and theologian Teilhard de Chardin and gets his key concept of an evolutionary "Omega Point" decidedly wrong. Essentially, the narrative in "Breakpoint" involves a plot that is apparently intended to disrupt the globe's intricate but delicate web of telephone and Internet connections ? the world's digital nervous system, if you will. Suspicion falls on the Chinese, aggressive and upset by U.S. support for Taiwanese independence. There's more to the plot than meets the mind's eye, however, and the story soon is involved with living Internet programs, nanotechnology and efforts to improve the human species through technological intervention in the genome. There are Russian gangsters, religiously conservative opponents of biological research ? an ambitious "Sen. Bloviator" ? and right-wing militias, jihadis and the U.S. Special Forces. Navigating among them are Clarke's protagonists: Susan Connor, a young African American intelligence analyst; James Foley, an ex-Marine and New York cop; and "Soxster," their faithful computer hacker ? a sort of high-tech Tonto. Their narrative antecedents are those one-of-every-kind of American platoons or ship's crews of which sentimental World War II-era filmmakers were so fond. (For those concerned about such things, there are a number of mildly intricate plot twists and aversions, which this review won't spoil.) This is worth thinking over if you consider the query Christopher Isherwood posed to his students: "Why are you telling me this? A writer must always be able to answer this question." This is where Clarke the writer becomes a source of not inconsequential confusion. In the author's note at the end of "Breakpoint," he informs readers that "many of the trends" he identified in his first novel "are dominating the news." He writes that this new fiction "is meant to be predictive." There's a long tradition of predictive speculative fiction concerning topics of great national interest, and it's an entirely honorable one. But those who have availed themselves of it have come to the genre as writers ? not as people whose work is marketed to the public as that of a former senior national security official. That background may provide a certain experience of fiction, but that's something most of us probably would rather not contemplate. Equally troubling is the fact that Clarke, the retired public official, still is in the business of offering serious advice on counter-terrorism. Just last month, for example, he concluded a lengthy essay in the Washington Post thus: "As the president contemplates sending even more U.S. forces into the Iraqi sinkhole, he should consider not only the thousands of fatalities, the tens of thousands of casualties and the hundreds of billions of dollars already lost. He must also weigh the opportunity cost of taking his national security barons off all the other critical problems they should be addressing ? problems whose windows of opportunity are slamming shut, unheard over the wail of Baghdad sirens." Fair enough, but the biographical note at the end of that piece describes Clarke as the chairman of Good Harbor Consulting. That organization's website has a glowing recitation of his credentials and informs visitors that he and his colleagues offer "consulting services in homeland security, cyber security, critical infrastructure and counterterrorism." Whether "Breakpoint" is, in fact, predictive of the future, it is unquestionably demonstrative of a present in which every aspect of human experience ? including the experience and knowledge of life and death gleaned from public service ? is simply another commodity, adroitly marketed and sold to the highest bidder. timothy.rutten at latimes.com Breakpoint: A Novel Richard A. Clarke From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 04:47:54 2007 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:47:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] (Transhumanist:-) Education in 2030 Message-ID: <88190.50077.qm@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear transhumanist friends, I am helping to coordinate The Millennium Project education survey for 2030. There are many transhumanist-oriented questions, and you can still participate filling out the survey until January 17: http://www.acunu.org/millennium/Education-2030.html The survey is really exciting and those who complete it will receive copies of the 2007 State of the Future:-) Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Thu Jan 11 05:31:06 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:31:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bush's Rush to Armageddon Message-ID: <45A5CB9A.4010503@mac.com> This is one of the better pieces I have encountered on what may "the real plan" behind Bush's latest moves. I hope it is wrong even while I doubt that it is. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0701/S00098.htm - samantha From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 08:13:57 2007 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:13:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] (Transhumanist:-) Education in 2030 In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701102334k204c3f4bo5b54528aae914f2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <662650.13905.qm@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Giulio, The access code is "edu". You must have read too quickly the instructions, for it is written there:-) Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: I tried to participate filling out the survey, but one needs an access code. I wrote to acunu at igc.org for one. G. On 1/11/07, Jose Cordeiro wrote: > Dear transhumanist friends, > > I am helping to coordinate The Millennium Project education survey for > 2030. There are many transhumanist-oriented questions, and you can still > participate filling out the survey until January 17: > > http://www.acunu.org/millennium/Education-2030.html > > The survey is really exciting and those who complete it will receive > copies of the 2007 State of the Future:-) > > Transhumanistically yours, > > > > > La vie est belle! > > Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) > > Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, > Multiverse > _______________________________________________ > wta-talk mailing list > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > > _______________________________________________ wta-talk mailing list wta-talk at transhumanism.org http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Jan 11 14:11:57 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:11:57 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please Message-ID: <49193.86.143.247.71.1168524717.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Have you noticed the nicely >H Honda "More Forwards Please" campaign? I ran into it yesterday, and was delighted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi4LH1MGWLs It stimulated me to write this little defence of change for change's sake, after reading a sour Demos blog about it (http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/thenanodialogues/blog/whereforwardsplease): http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2007/01/cute_robots_nietzsche_covenant_more_forwards_please.html Not that the Demos comment is wrong, but it seems to miss the emotional/spiritual aspect in favor of a utilitarian "whats it for?" aspect. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Jan 11 16:25:17 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:25:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] [ExtroBritannia] (Transhumanist:-) Education in 2030 In-Reply-To: <662650.13905.qm@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <470a3c520701102334k204c3f4bo5b54528aae914f2a@mail.gmail.com> <662650.13905.qm@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070111102317.02d63bb8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:13 AM 1/11/2007, Jose Cordeiro wrote: >On 1/11/07, Jose Cordeiro wrote: > > Dear transhumanist friends, > > > > I am helping to coordinate The Millennium Project education survey Working on this survey was an education in itself. I thought the questios were well written and concepts futuristic. 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 16:20:02 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:20:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <934106.59717.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Where oh where have the true subjective probabilists gone? Do they exist? What have they to say for themselves? For Christmas, Santa gave me a copy of _Subjective Probability: The Real Thing_ by professor Richard Jeffrey of Princeton (probably because I was bad in 2006). Surely, I thought, this Jeffrey fellow must be a hardcore subjectivist to have written a book by such a name. However on perusing his book it's not immediately clear to me that Jeffrey does not also admit to something like objective probability. On page 19, he writes: "1.8 OBJECTIVE CHANCE. It is natural to think there is such a thing as real or objective probability ('chance', for short) in contrast to merely judgmental probability." I've observed that when subjectivist probabilists like Jeffrey refer to what objectivists seem to mean by 'objective probability' or 'objective propensity', they substitute some other term such as 'objective chance'. Is this a case of a rose by any other name? Jeffery does however offer what seems to be a subjectivist interpretation of objective chance: "David Hume's skeptical answer to those questions says that chances are simply projections of ROBUST features of judgmental probabilities from our minds out into the world, whence we hear them clamoring to be let back in." Ahh, now there is some real philosophy. This is the sort of thing I was hoping to read about. I wonder if anyone here is familiar enough with Hume to offer a clear definition of what he meant by a "robust" (vs a non-robust) feature of judgmental probability. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 11 17:12:32 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:12:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please In-Reply-To: <49193.86.143.247.71.1168524717.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: I've just returned from CES 2007 in Las Vegas. Enjoyed the glimpses of new products and technologies, some productive and insightful conversations with people actively driving these forward, saw some old friends, and newly met and spent some time with another member of the extropy list. My top-level impression of the show was that the engines of progress are running hot, but not nearly as smartly as they could. In nearly every discussion I noticed limited awareness and comprehension of the surrounding ecology of technologies, markets and businesses. Of course increasing awareness is a key function of these face to face gatherings, but it appears that only a few see the vital importance of an effective information infrastructure not just supporting, but driving progress. My main focus at CES was on the emerging consumer robotics industry, its drivers and enablers, its challenges and uncertainties. There's general agreement that a convergence of technological and demographic factors will drive growth similar to what happened with the PC in the seventies, uncertainty as to what will be the killer app(s), and a few voices expressing concern (similar to the early days of the PC) that this is a technology that has no broad consumer application(!). The most profound message, expressed clearly by Bob Christopher of ugobe, was that we must progress beyond /controlling/ our technological creations, to /dialoging/ with them. Rather than the current mode of humans adapting to the requirements of our technologies, we will increasingly see our technologies learning and adapting to our requirements as they interact with us. [No surprise in that, for extropians.] In reply to Anders' post: Anders wrote at > I think change for change's sake has an > undeservedly bad reputation. I think we > need it to stay human. It is zest for life > and learning. Anything new means that the > range of human possibility has expanded a > bit more, that there are more modes of human > existence. And outside ourselves, the universe > expands too: > > "I am not interested in things getting better; > what I want is more: more human beings, more > dreams, more history, more consciousness, more > suffering, more joy, more disease, more agony, > more rapture, more evolution, more life." > David Zindell I think there's a slight but significant gap in this expression of appreciation for progress. While I enjoy its romantic and audacious approach to the uncertain rewards of human experience, it feeds a perception that we (extropians, transhumanists) believe all change is good in a kind of blind, negentropic way. Chaotic change is our friend to the extent that it provides the raw stuff necessary for selection and growth, but it is subjective, intentional selection by increasingly aware agents (us) that defines and drives toward the "good". - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Jan 11 17:36:47 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:36:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] (Transhumanist:-) Education in 2030 In-Reply-To: <88190.50077.qm@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <88190.50077.qm@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070111113621.02f03458@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:47 PM 1/10/2007, Jose wrote: >Dear transhumanist friends, > > I am helping to coordinate The Millennium Project education survey > for 2030. There are many transhumanist-oriented questions, and you can > still participate filling out the survey until January 17: > >http://www.acunu.org/millennium/Education-2030.html > > The survey is really exciting and those who complete it will receive > copies of the 2007 State of the Future:-) Working on this survey was an education in itself. I thought the questions were well written and concepts futuristic. 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 jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 11 18:20:26 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:20:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John K Clark wrote: > Jef Allbright Wrote: > >> it has been traditional for some people to (misleadingly) >> label these as "laws", as if they were absolutely decreed, >> rather than derived via a subjective process of >> observation and sense-making refinement. > > Jef, if everything is subjective then nothing is subjective, > for something to be meaningful you need contrast. Suppose > that everything that exists and everything that does not > exist, everything you can imagine and everything you can't > imagine has the property of being bloxinated. Do you think > the word "bloxinated" is likely to be useful to you, can you > imagine any reason to use it in a sentence? I can't. Although too busy to reply the last few days, I did spend some time pondering the source of our differences here. I suspect we're using the term "subjective" differently. Many people think of subjectivity as if it were not grounded, and I think you're assuming that usage. I see misunderstanding of subjectivity at the heart of nearly all the perennial problems of philosophy, due to the pervasive misbelief that a subjective agent can somehow be independent of such grounding in the "real" world. [Apologies for the scare-quoting, but it's for a purpose.] Subjectivity is often thought of simply as personal bias. This idea is so narrow that it leads to the disagreement we're having here, where you seem to take subjective as implying no basis for comparison. But in a more useful encompassing sense, these biases are the merely the result of *limited context* ranging from purely subjective to purely objective. There are no actual cases of truly independent subjective views--we all share a great deal of context in common--and we most certainly can compare and evaluate subjective models, most successfully by a process known as the scientific method. Please consider: * I have little tolerance for those who promote equal tolerance for all beliefs. * I think that moral relativism is morally wrong. * While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, our eyes and cognitive structures hold much in common. * I see increasing diversity as providing the source material for increasing agreement. Can you see from the points above that I'm not defending the simple-minded view of subjectivity which you appear to be attacking? >> The very high statistical regularity of "random" radioactive >> decay > My use of quotation marks in "this" sentence is as foolish as > your use of quotation marks above. Let me ask you something, > can you give me a logical reason why every event must have a > cause? I can't. You and I and Hume would agree with regard to the problem of induction. However, despite having no visible means of support, life goes on. Rather than being paradoxical, this is a valid observation about the inherently subjective nature of any reflexive system of awareness. - Jef From jonkc at att.net Thu Jan 11 18:41:53 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:41:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <005a01c73286$27c88e50$430a4e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701071328i1881fb6clf27eb33b48f151bf@mail.gmail.com><003801c73350$a8a73880$b3054e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081035j4bfebc88xf5e5f645d0bd99bf@mail.gmail.com><003201c73379$0cb052d0$ad084e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0701081748v906c673x82a005a5d78de282@mail.gmail.com><005701c7341d$44fb6310$df044e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070109163054.02276218@satx.rr.com><007801c734e3$8a826390$22084e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070110125037.021efa60@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00d001c735b0$2e42e280$6a084e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > You suggested that no scientist was ever usefully influenced by philosophy > of science I don't believe I quite said that, in fact I think every scientist needs a philosophy of science, it's just that it doesn't take a great genius to develop one. I did say that I couldn't think of a great philosopher of science that was also a great scientist, and somebody brought up Ernst Mach. I admit he probably comes the closest; he was certainly a great philosopher of science, but was he a great scientist? He wrote his most important scientific paper in 1887, but the man lived till 1916. He spent nearly 30 years on philosophy, and in opposing the atomic theory of matter and relativity. He opposed them for philosophic reasons I might add. > ("Easiest way to prove me wrong is to provide a counter example"); I and > gts produced several counter examples of scientists who were so guided. My challenge was to "tell me one thing, just one thing, that philosophers of science have discovered that is clear, precise, unexpected, and true". I don't believe anyone has done that yet. John K Clark From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 11 18:57:56 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:57:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: gts wrote: > On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:03:50 -0500, Jef Allbright > > wrote: > >> I assume a "real" universe describable (in principle, >> at any particular moment) in coherent and consistent >> terms from any particular frame of reference. > > Concerning this universe you assume... > > Do you assume it exists objectively, separate from your > awareness and knowledge? No, if I were to make that assumption, then I would unjustifiably limit my model. Also, I have logical reason to know that I can't make that assumption. Why rule out the possibility that this "physical reality" is actually something like a simulation within a larger "reality", or perhaps just the result of the behavior of "information" with no physical basis, or ...? We can never know, so why not get comfortable with uncertainty to the extent that it applies? Making the assumption of an objective universe is unwarranted, and it unnecessarily complicates our model of understanding and decision-making. > If yes then do you assume also that > what you call "actual likelihoods" exist objectively, > separate from your "subjective assessments" of them? > > If yes to both questions then I think objectivists have no > disagreement with you, and that in fact you should count > yourself among them. I think it's funny that I can argue long and hard that all meaning is subjective and in the end, without showing understanding of my point of view, you can still find a way to suggest that I should adopt the label of objectivist. Unfortunately in my estimation, I guess the odds are that the chance for agreement on this issue is probably not very likely. - Jef From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Jan 11 19:09:16 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:09:16 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2484.163.1.72.81.1168542556.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Jef Allbright wrote: > I think there's a slight but significant gap in this expression of > appreciation for progress. While I enjoy its romantic and audacious > approach to the uncertain rewards of human experience, it feeds a > perception that we (extropians, transhumanists) believe all change is > good in a kind of blind, negentropic way. Maybe. But I think we need to consider our position. Rationally we are all for "good change" and trying to steer change towards desirable outcomes and avoid bad outcomes. That is something we need to emphasize. But I find that quite often when you do that you end up in a grey utilitarian mode where all progress is for making the world more comfy. It tends to lock you into arguing for a "more-human" rather than a "transhuman" world, a world where all current human needs are taken into account but where there is no acknowledgement of the expansion of humanity. > Chaotic change is our friend to the extent that it provides the raw > stuff necessary for selection and growth, but it is subjective, > intentional selection by increasingly aware agents (us) that defines and > drives toward the "good". Exactly. But what I'm fishing for here is something beyond chaos, getting the new stuff. I'm increasingly thinking that there might be something good about new stuff that has never existed before and might never have come into being. It could be just a weak aesthetic value, but it could also be that its contingency and uniqueness gives it a bit of moral value. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 19:35:21 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:35:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <965641.63601.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jef Allbright wrote: > I suspect we're using the term "subjective" differently. So that you know, I mean something very precise by that term in the context of this question about probability theory: A subjective probabilist is one who has no theoretical problem with two individuals using different bayesian priors about the same situation, provided only that those priors are coherent. "coherent" means here that no so-called "dutch books" may be made against the agent by a clever adversary in a betting arrangement in which the agent places multiple bets on an outcome consistent with his subjective degrees of belief. A "dutch book" is a sort of arbitrage situation in which the agent would lose no matter the outcome because of the incoherency of his bets. This is how the subjective theory was elucidated by both Frank Ramsey and Bruno de Finetti, each of whom discovered the theory independently of one another. More accurately they discovered that the simple coherency constraint on bets as described above was sufficient to satisfy the axioms of probability, with no need for logical/rational constraints and the problems they entail, which I think is very interesting... -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 11 20:12:48 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:12:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please In-Reply-To: <2484.163.1.72.81.1168542556.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Anders Sandberg wrote: > Jef Allbright wrote: >> I think there's a slight but significant gap in this >> expression of appreciation for progress. While I enjoy >> its romantic and audacious approach to the uncertain >> rewards of human experience, it feeds a perception that >> we (extropians, transhumanists) believe all change is >> good in a kind of blind, negentropic way. > > Maybe. But I think we need to consider our position. > Rationally we are all for "good change" and trying to steer > change towards desirable outcomes and avoid bad outcomes. > That is something we need to emphasize. But I find that quite > often when you do that you end up in a grey utilitarian mode > where all progress is for making the world more comfy. It > tends to lock you into arguing for a "more-human" rather than > a "transhuman" world, a world where all current human needs > are taken into account but where there is no acknowledgement > of the expansion of humanity. > >> Chaotic change is our friend to the extent that it provides >> the raw stuff necessary for selection and growth, but it is >> subjective, intentional selection by increasingly aware >> agents (us) that defines and drives toward the "good". > > Exactly. But what I'm fishing for here is something beyond > chaos, getting the new stuff. I'm increasingly thinking that > there might be something good about new stuff that has never > existed before and might never have come into being. It could > be just a weak aesthetic value, but it could also be that its > contingency and uniqueness gives it a bit of moral value. Please consider the following, since I think I clearly understand your stated position, having been there myself. This difficulty is another example symptomatic of our unfamiliarity and discomfort with our nature as subjective agents and has lead to interminable debate. A problem with virtually all ethical philosophy is that it deals with how or whether we can optimize ends. Kant's Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule fail for this reason, but people still debate all around the issues. Let's face it in the 21st century, we can't optimize for ends, but we can optimize for growth in directions of our choosing. As subjective agents, we can never know the extended consequences of our actions, and for this reason "the best laid plans of mice and men" do tend to lead to disaster, stagnation, or developmental cul-de-sac, in the long run. Why? Because they don't optimize for growth. But, as subjective agents, we *can* gain increasingly effective understanding of principles of interaction in our (expanding) environment of interaction, via essentially what we know as the scientific method. And with this increasingly effective knowledge of principles of effective interaction, applied to increasingly effective knowledge of our values, we can optimally (but boundedly) steer our way forward. We might still expire in some evolutionary cul-de-sac, but at least we would have made the best possible choices given our starting point. Again, the key is to optimize based on *principles* of effective interaction, relative to promotion of our present (but evolving) values, rather than optimize for (inherently context-limited) *ends*. This practice inherently promotes synergetic positive-sum cooperation, "blind" justice, and the diversity necessary for robust ongoing "growth" in the direction of our shared (cooperative) values that work. I've described this in more detail, and with some degree of rigor, in previous discussions about the "Arrow of Morality", and it seems to have the merits of being both internally consistent and extensible. I am also greatly encouraged by several comments in this year's Edge.org Question indicating that this meme is spreading. Although I'm quite sensitive to abusing this public list with another rendition, I would appreciate any comments, questions, or criticism and will gladly continue the discussion either on or offline. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 11 20:48:07 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:48:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?" In-Reply-To: <965641.63601.qm@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: gts wrote: > --- Jef Allbright wrote: > > > I suspect we're using the term "subjective" > differently. > > So that you know, I mean something very precise by that term > in the context of this question about probability theory: > > A subjective probabilist is one who has no theoretical > problem with two individuals using different bayesian priors > about the same situation, provided only that those priors are > coherent. Well, to use your "very precise" terminology. I "have no theoretical problem" with what you've stated below. It seems as simple and obvious as the principle of indeterminacy and is really just a restatement of that principle in the context of optimum decision-making under uncertainty. - Jef > "coherent" means here that no so-called "dutch books" > may be made against the agent by a clever adversary in a > betting arrangement in which the agent places multiple bets > on an outcome consistent with his subjective degrees of > belief. A "dutch book" is a sort of arbitrage situation in > which the agent would lose no matter the outcome because of > the incoherency of his bets. > > This is how the subjective theory was elucidated by both > Frank Ramsey and Bruno de Finetti, each of whom discovered > the theory independently of one another. > More accurately they discovered that the simple coherency > constraint on bets as described above was sufficient to > satisfy the axioms of probability, with no need for > logical/rational constraints and the problems they entail, > which I think is very interesting... > > -gts > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Jan 11 21:32:46 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:32:46 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please In-Reply-To: References: <2484.163.1.72.81.1168542556.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: I'll throw my 2 cents into the ring here. There was an interesting article recently in the NY Times about people my age (boomers) slowly having their wealth (and perhaps sanity) being drained in the process of caring for their elderly parents. Observing the process of growing "old" in my parents quite closely over the last year I can see where robots and IA have a significant opportunity to "uplift" humans as they are now (never mind the transhuman aspects that would result from returning my parents indefintely to a youthful state -- I know how to solve that problem and it is *hard* (though not "real" nanotech *hard*)). But the simple aspects of robots that would help my mother prepare diner (she has arthritis that makes cutting things up difficult) or computer systems (!Windows which is brain dead && !Linux which isn't exactly user friendly) that would not create problems for people like my father (who is quite competent from a technical standpoint but didn't grow up with computers) or that could work with either parent to exercise their minds (something shown to extend longevity) [1]. Everyone tends to be focused on the rush rush youth market (my mother or father use an Apple iPhone (see me ROTFL) care about "MySpace" (whats MySpace?), etc.) There is little emphasis on how to augment the lifestyles of the elderly to allow them to remain functional and productive -- perhaps, as Ray puts it, "Living long enough to live forever". I don't know if my parents will make it. The odds are against them. But for those of you on the list who have parents in their 60s, maybe even their late 50s, you should be asking yourselves whether it is "moral" to develop, market and push on technologies that *only* benefit those in the 15-30 y.o. age bracket? I would predict there will come a time, sometime perhaps in the 2015 to 2030 time frame when books will be written with titles like "How many could we have saved?" This isn't rocket science -- simple things like distributing / tracking / asking people about whether they have taken their medications, quick calculations based on verbal Q&A regarding dietary intake, etc. could make a big difference in the quality of life for the elderly. So a couple of simple questions for Jef. Q1: What was the average CES attendee age? Q2: Would you be willing to stand outside the entrance next year holding up a big sign saying "How many must die before we say 'Never again?'... And will you really mean it this time?" [2] Robert 1. It is worth noting that an iRobot Roomba vacuum cleaner is something that can significantly benefit the quality of life of those with limited mobility (by keeping homes clean). Now in an ideal world, iRobot would not be focused on producing mobile robots for combat surveillance purposes (something I believe they are working on), or even more questionable combat purposes, but would instead be trying to produce a robut "duster" (something a little bit trickier since it has to operate in 3D rather than just 2D). 2. The "you" not meaning Jef but the attendees to CES -- presumably most of whom have heard of places like Rwanda and Darfur. (The elderly death toll in the U.S. on an annual basis dwarfs the death tolls of Rwanda and Darfur.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 21:46:42 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:46:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <296540.36685.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Jef Allbright wrote: > It seems as simple and obvious as the principle of > indeterminacy and is really just a restatement of > that principle in the > context of optimum decision-making under > uncertainty. Sorry, I think you missed my point. The principle of "indeterminacy" (of "indifference", I think you meant, as this is the principle we'd been discussing) is one of the logical/rational constraints *not* required in the subjective theory of Ramsey and De Finetti. Subjective Bayesians are free to set their prior probabilities in any way they please, *no matter how irrational*, provided only that they are consistent such that if they were betting on their subjective probabilities a clever betting adversary could not force them to lose money no matter the outcome. For example a subjective bayesian might set the prior probability of intelligent life on the moon at .99999, near certainty. Any rational, scientifically informed person would call him crazy, and tell him very bluntly that he needs to take a course in "optimum decision-making under uncertainty" among other things. But it matters only for the purposes of the subjective theory that his hypothetical bets about life on the moon be coherent, such that no one could exploit his position such as to *force* him to lose money no matter whether his crazy theory is correct or incorrect. That is what distinguishes subjective bayesianism from the objective/logical bayesianism that you have wittingly or unwittingly defended here and in the "Paradox? What Paradox?" thread. The remarkable thing is that the subjective theory so defined still satisfies the axioms of probability. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 11 22:17:48 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:17:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Bradbury wrote: I'll throw my 2 cents into the ring here. There was an interesting article recently in the NY Times about people my age (boomers) slowly having their wealth (and perhaps sanity) being drained in the process of caring for their elderly parents. Observing the process of growing "old" in my parents quite closely over the last year I can see where robots and IA have a significant opportunity to "uplift" humans as they are now (never mind the transhuman aspects that would result from returning my parents indefintely to a youthful state -- I know how to solve that problem and it is *hard* (though not "real" nanotech *hard*)). But the simple aspects of robots that would help my mother prepare diner (she has arthritis that makes cutting things up difficult) or computer systems (!Windows which is brain dead && !Linux which isn't exactly user friendly) that would not create problems for people like my father (who is quite competent from a technical standpoint but didn't grow up with computers) or that could work with either parent to exercise their minds (something shown to extend longevity) [1]. Yes, there was explicit discusson at CES about the importance of (1) robotic care for the elderly, and (2) robots that overcome the user-interface barrier by adapting to the human. In addition, many of the products on the show floor were categorized as "Lifestyle Enhancement" which is completely separate from "Entertainment". Everyone tends to be focused on the rush rush youth market (my mother or father use an Apple iPhone (see me ROTFL) care about "MySpace" (whats MySpace?), etc.) There is little emphasis on how to augment the lifestyles of the elderly to allow them to remain functional and productive -- perhaps, as Ray puts it, "Living long enough to live forever". I don't know if my parents will make it. The odds are against them. But for those of you on the list who have parents in their 60s, maybe even their late 50s, you should be asking yourselves whether it is "moral" to develop, market and push on technologies that *only* benefit those in the 15-30 y.o. age bracket? I would predict there will come a time, sometime perhaps in the 2015 to 2030 time frame when books will be written with titles like "How many could we have saved?" I take your point, but let's not forget the broad and pervasive effects of technology diffusion. The rise of PC technology had enormous diffuse effects in terms of novel and economical hardware, software, technical familiarity and know-how, and the social ramifications of increasing familiarity with using the technology and increasing access to and sharing of all kinds of knowledge. In contrast, I'm sure you remember back in the late 70s and early 80s when many non-business, non-tech people were perplexed and asking what they would possibly do with a personal computer besides store and index their cooking recipes. This isn't rocket science -- simple things like distributing / tracking / asking people about whether they have taken their medications, quick calculations based on verbal Q&A regarding dietary intake, etc. could make a big difference in the quality of life for the elderly. I hugely agree, and this was precisely the content of some of my focused discussion and research at the show. [I'll divulge more later.] So a couple of simple questions for Jef. Q1: What was the average CES attendee age? I don't have official statistics, but my guess would be that the distribution was something like 18-30 yrs: 25%, 31-49 yrs: 50%, 50+ yrs: 25%. So average age about 40 yrs. Q2: Would you be willing to stand outside the entrance next year holding up a big sign saying "How many must die before we say 'Never again?'... And will you really mean it this time?" [2] (A) No I don't think I would choose to stand outside with such a sign. I don't think it would be effective. (B) No, I don't think they would really mean it. See Keith Henson for the (evolutionary) psychology. Robert 1. It is worth noting that an iRobot Roomba vacuum cleaner is something that can significantly benefit the quality of life of those with limited mobility (by keeping homes clean). Now in an ideal world, iRobot would not be focused on producing mobile robots for combat surveillance purposes (something I believe they are working on), or even more questionable combat purposes, but would instead be trying to produce a robut "duster" (something a little bit trickier since it has to operate in 3D rather than just 2D). iRobot has had two main product lines: (1) Consumer products which are variations on the Roomba floor cleaning robot, and (2) the military PakBot robot. Just now, at the CES show, they announced the new iRobot Create which is a hobbyist/development platform based on a stripped-down Roomba at a very affordable price. There was much discussion about how this was hoped to stimulate interest in diverse new applications. 2. The "you" not meaning Jef but the attendees to CES -- presumably most of whom have heard of places like Rwanda and Darfur. (The elderly death toll in the U.S. on an annual basis dwarfs the death tolls of Rwanda and Darfur.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jan 11 22:46:45 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:46:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 Message-ID: <380-220071411224645113@M2W027.mail2web.com> In memory of a true real cosmic trigger - http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/01/11/robert-anton-wilson-1932-2007/ Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Jan 11 23:19:07 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:19:07 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 In-Reply-To: <380-220071411224645113@M2W027.mail2web.com> References: <380-220071411224645113@M2W027.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <63260.86.143.247.71.1168557547.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > In memory of a true real cosmic trigger - > > http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/01/11/robert-anton-wilson-1932-2007/ I guess it shows my Internet age that my first thought was: "again?!" I still remember reading the original erroneous death rumour and its aftermath on Usenet. Death has become quite interactive these days. There was always something very zen about his anti-dogmatism, as it cheerfully veered between critical thinking and having a mind so open that the brains (colorfully and interestingly) fell out. Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From amaraa at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 23:46:00 2007 From: amaraa at gmail.com (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:46:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 In-Reply-To: <63260.86.143.247.71.1168557547.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <380-220071411224645113@M2W027.mail2web.com> <63260.86.143.247.71.1168557547.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <02cc01c735da$a696ecc0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER> >From physicist Nick Herbert From: nick herbert [mailto:quanta at cruzio.com] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:46 PM To: Supreme Being Subject: Re: Essential RAW What a marvelous journey! How we all laughed! O such lovely companions On this splendid old craft! Here's to bold Captain Wilson Who jumped ship last night Amused to the end By his share of the Light! Hail Eris! Hail Arlen! Hail Schr?dinger''s Cat Hail Robert Anton Wilson Wherever you're at. with much love Nick Herbert From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 23:57:51 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:57:51 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/11/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I don't have official statistics, but my guess would be that the > distribution was something like 18-30 yrs: 25%, 31-49 yrs: 50%, 50+ yrs: > 25%. So average age about 40 yrs. > That is better than I would have expected. > (A) No I don't think I would choose to stand outside with such a sign. I > don't think it would be effective. > Because....? Would you have to be Steve Jobs (who is older than 50) to make a statement that causes people to get serious? (B) No, I don't think they would really mean it. See Keith Henson for the > (evolutionary) psychology. > So, you are saying... Money talks, people walk... ??? At what point does humanity flip from being concerned about self-survival to species (or concept) survival? Or does it ever? Is it ever possible to make the flip where morality or "rightness" trumps ones personal self interest? (It goes without saying that always being focused on ones own self interest (or $$$) limits the phase space of development). [1] Keith may wish to offer some insights here. Is there any hope? [2] iRobot has had two main product lines: (1) Consumer products which are > variations on the Roomba floor cleaning robot, and (2) the military PakBot > robot. Just now, at the CES show, they announced the new iRobot Create > which is a hobbyist/development platform based on a stripped-down Roomba at > a very affordable price. There was much discussion about how this was hoped > to stimulate interest in diverse new applications. > So in other words, "you" the altruistic (cough) public can develop the applications that really *help* people. We on the other hand will continue to develop the applications responsible for ending human lives because that is where the profits lie. Robert 1. Sounds like I need to go out and sign up for the not-so-friendly-AI camp since the "human" camp is doomed. Maybe "There can be only one" is the right philosophy. 2. There is a point when inbred survival instincts are trumped. It might be achieved by biotechnology but will more likely not be until robust nanotechnology becomes available. At that point in the time of human development the "evolutionary" survival instincts become no-ops. All survival instincts and memes at that point are "software". So what drives oneself would be entirely "of ones own invention" rather than built into ones being. The question would be "How long after our survival needs are met do we continue to operate as if they are not met?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 00:58:39 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:58:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 In-Reply-To: <02cc01c735da$a696ecc0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER> References: <380-220071411224645113@M2W027.mail2web.com> <63260.86.143.247.71.1168557547.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <02cc01c735da$a696ecc0$640fa8c0@HPMEDIACENTER> Message-ID: <5366105b0701111658vbc4791egfbe487a1a0c53fa0@mail.gmail.com> Thursday, 11 January 2007 I don't suppose he had signed up for cryonic suspension, had he? -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 01:10:26 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:10:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/11/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > So, you are saying... Money talks, people walk... ??? At what point does > humanity flip from being concerned about self-survival to species (or > concept) survival? Or does it ever? Is it ever possible to make the flip > where morality or "rightness" trumps ones personal self interest? (It goes > without saying that always being focused on ones own self interest (or $$$) > limits the phase space of development). [1] Keith may wish to offer some > insights here. Is there any hope? [2] > > So in other words, "you" the altruistic (cough) public can develop the > applications that really *help* people. We on the other hand will continue > to develop the applications responsible for ending human lives because that > is where the profits lie. > The nonhuman touch Robots are making inroads in health care, are great with stroke patients, autistic kids BY SETH BORENSTEIN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Jan 11, 2007 BALTIMORE After more than 2? years of physical therapy and electronic stimulation, stroke victim Mike Marin still couldn't open a door with his left hand. Now, thanks to a robot, Marin can open a door. His atrophied left arm isn't completely useless anymore. Marin is at the forefront of what may seem an unlikely use for robots: providing the caring human touch. For three months in rehab at a suburb north of New York, an unnamed and unlikely looking robot guided his arm repeatedly through an ordinary video game. Where normal therapy failed, the constant robot-guided repetitions worked. In experiments across the country, robots are providing the human caring touch to patients who need more help than there are therapists and nurses: stroke victims, autistic children, and the elderly. Bever, a newcomer to the field of robotics, now wants to try robotic therapy on patients with multiple sclerosis. ----------------------------- In the US and Japan there is a lot going on to develop helper robots. It's not very exciting stuff for the news media, so you have to bypass the headlines and look harder to find out about it. BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Jan 12 05:04:40 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:04:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Sam Harris controversy References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070107221623.022f4ce0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <048201c73607$8565c9e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien passes on a message from Sam Harris: > Sam Harris writes to his mailing list: > > Dear Readers, > > Some of you may have noticed an article about me that is now running on > Alternet.org. The writer, John Gorenfeld, has taken a ninety minute > telephone interview, along with selective passages from my books, and made > of them a poisonous of mash of misquotation and paraphrasis for the purpose > of portraying me as an evil lunatic... A friend lent me a DVD featuring Sam Harris giving a speech concerning the same themes that animate his terrific "The End of Faith". As impressed as I had been with the quality of Harris's writing in "The End of Faith", as I watched the DVD I was absolutely thunderstruck and carried away by his unbelievably compelling eloquence. It became difficult to think that anyone except the most devout would remain unconvinced by his clear logic and lucid presentation. In fact, it was so good that---you'll find this hard to believe---my disbelief in God was actually shaken. For as I watched him speak, it seemed that ancient prophesies were indeed coming to pass. For who but the Anti-Christ himself could be *that* convincing and *that* articulate? It was uncanny, even inhuman, I tell you! Fortunately, after I thought about it a while, my lack of faith firmed itself up, and my faith in the non-existence of God returned. But I have to admit that I was shaken for a moment. He's *good*! Or *bad*, whatever. Lee From jonkc at att.net Fri Jan 12 06:01:07 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:01:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: Message-ID: <070d01c7360f$10bcb380$95054e0c@MyComputer> "Jef Allbright" Jef Allbright was asked "Concerning this universe you assume... Do you assume it exists objectively, separate from your awareness and knowledge?" and he responded "No". I'm sorry Jef, but I just don't believe you. The reason I say that is that although I may disagree with you from time to time I have never seen any evidence that you are insane, and I do not believe anyone this side of a loony bin really and truly believes in Solipsism. > Why rule out the possibility that this "physical reality" > is actually something like a simulation What's that got to do with the price of eggs? A simulation is a perfectly respectable phenomena, as objective as any other. True, a simulated flame is not identical to a real flame, but to say it has absolutely no reality can lead to problems. Suppose you say that for a fire to be real it must have some immaterial essence of fire, a sort of "burning" soul, thus a simulated flame does not really burn because it just changes the pattern in a computer memory. The trouble is, using the same reasoning you could say that a real fire doesn't really burn, it just oxidizes chemicals; but really a flame can't even do that, it just obeys the laws of chemistry. If we continue with this we soon reach a point where nothing is real but the fundamental laws of physics, I don't think either of us wants to embrace that position. I think a simulated flame is a perfectly real and objective phenomena, but care must be taken not to confuse levels. A simulated flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. A real flame won't burn the laws of chemistry but it will burn your finger. John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jan 12 05:53:44 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:53:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Sam Harris controversy In-Reply-To: <048201c73607$8565c9e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200701120612.l0C6CxEM020372@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > > A friend lent me a DVD featuring Sam Harris giving a speech concerning > the same themes that animate his terrific "The End of Faith". ... > > Fortunately, after I thought about it a while, my lack of faith firmed > itself up, and my faith in the non-existence of God returned. But I > have to admit that I was shaken for a moment. He's *good*! > > Or *bad*, whatever. > > Lee Lee you crack me up bud. {8-] This post reminds me of me. Back in the days when I had time to post funnies on ExI. {8^D spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 12 06:36:40 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:36:40 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <070d01c7360f$10bcb380$95054e0c@MyComputer> References: <070d01c7360f$10bcb380$95054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070112003547.02336858@satx.rr.com> At 01:01 AM 1/12/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: >A simulated flame won't burn your >computer but it will burn a simulated object. A real flame won't burn the >laws of chemistry but it will burn your finger. Very deft! Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jan 12 06:04:40 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:04:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please (3) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070112010434.03d354e0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:32 PM 1/11/2007 +0000, Robert wrote: >I don't know if my parents will make it. The odds are against them. Mine didn't. They thought cryonics was repulsive, but then they had much the same opinion about space colonies. >But for those of you on the list who have parents in their 60s, Heh. I will be 65 myself this year. Guess I am an ur-transhumanist. >maybe even their late 50s, you should be asking yourselves whether it is >"moral" to develop, market and push on technologies that *only* benefit >those in the 15-30 y.o. age bracket? I have no idea of what such a product might even be. How about an example? >I would predict there will come a time, sometime perhaps in the 2015 to >2030 time frame when books will be written with titles like "How many >could we have saved?" Maybe. A more interesting title would be "How we could have saved them." Because I don't know, for example, how to convince people that cryonics is a good bet or even a good idea. (Long ago about a third of Alcor's membership named me as influential in their decision, but I have no idea of what I did other than set an example to people already inclined that way.) Been thinking about how to get people into cryonics with increasingly good mental tools (like memetics and evolutionary psychology) for over 20 years now. Not much progress. Ideas would be appreciated. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jan 12 03:05:47 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:05:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070111220533.03d7c918@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:58 PM 1/11/2007 -0600, you wrote: >Thursday, 11 January 2007 > >I don't suppose he had signed up for cryonic suspension, had he? No. I tried twice, once a few years before his wife died, and more recently several months ago. I did get a cell sample from his wife when died, which is in storage with a cryonics company. I am unable to do the same with RAW so if someone is on the scene, and could collect one, even a few roots of hairs, let me know. Raising a clone of a friend is better than nothing, but not much. Keith PS. Incidentally, the brain of his daughter Luna is in suspension. It was a really poor suspension, she was found a day after being murdered. From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jan 12 06:04:09 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:04:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070112010334.03a8bad8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:58 PM 1/11/2007 -0600, you wrote: >Thursday, 11 January 2007 > >I don't suppose he had signed up for cryonic suspension, had he? No. I tried twice, once a few years before his wife died, and more recently several months ago. I did get a cell sample from his wife when died, which is in storage with a cryonics company. I am unable to do the same with RAW so if someone is on the scene, and could collect one, even a few roots of hairs, let me know. Raising a clone of a friend is better than nothing, but not much. Keith PS. Incidentally, the brain of his daughter Luna is in suspension. It was a really poor suspension, she was found a day after being murdered. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 13:45:22 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:45:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070112010334.03a8bad8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070112010334.03a8bad8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 1/12/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > PS. Incidentally, the brain of his daughter Luna is in suspension. It > was > a really poor suspension, she was found a day after being murdered. Eugen might want to comment since I think he has studied this further, but I don't think a day is not enough to significantly alter the neuronal connection architecture significantly. You might lose some internal cell functionality due to protease degradation but that and a whole other set of problems will need to be resolved for biological reanimation. If the neuronal connection architecture is still there, and perhaps the protein content of the synapses, then the person is still effectively "there". Indeed, I was thinking as the recent search for 3 climbers on Mt. Hood was taking place, "If they are found frozen, they still aren't dead." To the best of my knowledge one body was found under conditions which were good for brain preservation, and two bodies are still missing (Google doesn't seem to fess up to the bodies being recovered). Now, it would be interesting for Cryonics interested parties to contact the relatives of the climbers that may as yet remain undiscovered and discuss with them bringing the bodies back with a direct transfer to a cryonics facility. Presumably it would be better to do this before late spring. Indeed, given the frequency with which mountain climbers accidentally "suspend" themselves, I am surprised that mountain-to-facility recovery is not a more often discussed topic. The same might apply to who die from drowning in relatively cold waters. Robert P.S. If anyone is aware of papers or books discussing the decay of the human body, esp. the brain, under various conditions of death, creating a web-available list or posting them here would be useful. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jan 12 14:57:24 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:57:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Sam Harris controversy In-Reply-To: <048201c73607$8565c9e0$6601a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070107221623.022f4ce0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070112095257.0399c958@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:04 PM 1/11/2007 -0800, Lee wrote: >Damien passes on a message from Sam Harris: snip >As impressed as I had been with the quality of Harris's writing in "The >End of Faith", as I watched the DVD I was absolutely thunderstruck >and carried away by his unbelievably compelling eloquence. It became >difficult to think that anyone except the most devout would remain >unconvinced by his clear logic and lucid presentation. I have had 20-25 exchanges with some fundamentalists here: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060916_sam_harris_rottweiler_barks/ They might amuse some of you. Keith Henson From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 16:09:39 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:09:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070112003547.02336858@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070112160939.46280.qmail@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> "The Ramsey-De Finetti theorem is a remarkable achievement, and clearly demonstrates the superiority of the subjective to the logical theory. Whereas in the logical theory the axioms of probability could only be justified by a vague and unsatisfactory appeal to intuition, in the subjective theory they can be proved rigorously from the eminently plausible condition of coherence [...] In addition, the subjective theory solves the paradoxes of the Principle of Indifference by, in effect, making the principle unnecessary, or at most a heuristic device." -D. Gillies, (2000) _Philosophical Theories of Probability_: Routledge Concerning the paper cited by Ben in which someone named Durack (if I have his name correctly) proposed a solution to the wine/water paradox, I've been thinking about that (always a bad sign)... The author proposes a reasonable solution to the wine/water paradox, but I've been thinking about the general applicability of his idea to the bertrand paradoxes. The main idea in that paper is that paradoxes of the Principle of Indifference (the PI) can be avoided if we ask the right questions. Specifically the author makes a persuasive argument that the probability of an outcome is always conditional on the sample space that contains it, and that the PI paradoxes go away if only information about the relevant sample space is made explicit in the questions that lead to the supposed paradoxes. But something about that idea just seems too obvious.. and it occurs to me why: it is obvious because it's nothing new at all, but rather just a sort of restatement of the classical theory of Pascal, Fermat and Laplace. The basic problem still remains in the case of, for example, selecting the random cube. What is the probability of the event in question? We're inclined, after reading that paper, to reply, "The answer depends on our choice of sample space, information not included in the question." And of course there is nothing at all wrong with our reply. But here is the rub: The principle of indifference exists as a supposed logical principle for us to use in exactly this type of situation of high uncertainty! To answer that "more information is needed" is to admit that the PI has failed us. Real-world situations can arise in which probability decisions must be made with little or no knowledge of the distribution or sample space, situations analogous to that which we face in the aforementioned paradox of selecting a random cube from the output of a cube factory. It seems natural to invoke the principle of indifference in such situations - it's certainly not *incorrect* use it as a way to determine Bayesian priors - but somehow I think it is nevertheless incorrect to imagine that our decision to invoke the PI is always strictly *rational*. So I'm finding myself back in agreement here with Gillies above, that the PI is "at most a heuristic device"... -gts From ben at goertzel.org Fri Jan 12 16:26:26 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:26:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <20070112160939.46280.qmail@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070112003547.02336858@satx.rr.com> <20070112160939.46280.qmail@web36503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701120826w6acaeda0je59f3e29371ce24f@mail.gmail.com> Yes, but in terms of the subjective theory of probability, it seems that certain ways of using the PI are "incoherent" whereas others are "coherent." The paper I referenced described coherent ways of using PI in the wine/water situation and other commonly discussed situations... A rational mind may, at a certain point, not be able to tell which way of using the PI is going to be coherent in the context of future observations. But it should be able to tell which ways will be coherent in the context of prior observations, if it has adequate computational resources to do the calculations. ben On 1/12/07, gts wrote: > "The Ramsey-De Finetti theorem is a remarkable > achievement, and clearly demonstrates the superiority > of the subjective to the logical theory. Whereas in > the logical theory the axioms of probability could > only be justified by a vague and unsatisfactory appeal > to intuition, in the subjective theory they can be > proved rigorously from the eminently plausible > condition of coherence [...] In addition, the > subjective theory solves the paradoxes of the > Principle of Indifference by, in effect, making the > principle unnecessary, or at most a heuristic device." > > > -D. Gillies, (2000) _Philosophical Theories of > Probability_: Routledge > > Concerning the paper cited by Ben in which someone > named Durack (if I have his name correctly) proposed a > solution to the wine/water paradox, I've been thinking > about that (always a bad sign)... > > The author proposes a reasonable solution to the > wine/water paradox, but I've been thinking about the > general applicability of his idea to the bertrand > paradoxes. > > The main idea in that paper is that paradoxes of the > Principle of Indifference (the PI) can be avoided if > we ask the right questions. Specifically the author > makes a persuasive argument that the probability of an > outcome is always conditional on the sample space that > contains it, and that the PI paradoxes go away if only > information about the relevant sample space is made > explicit in the questions that lead to the supposed > paradoxes. > > But something about that idea just seems too obvious.. > and it occurs to me why: it is obvious because it's > nothing new at all, but rather just a sort of > restatement of the classical theory of Pascal, Fermat > and Laplace. > > The basic problem still remains in the case of, for > example, selecting the random cube. What is the > probability of the event in question? We're inclined, > after reading that paper, to reply, "The answer > depends on our choice of sample space, information not > included in the question." And of course there is > nothing at all wrong with our reply. > > But here is the rub: > > The principle of indifference exists as a supposed > logical principle for us to use in exactly this type > of situation of high uncertainty! To answer that "more > information is needed" is to admit that the PI has > failed us. > > Real-world situations can arise in which probability > decisions must be made with little or no knowledge of > the distribution or sample space, situations analogous > to that which we face in the aforementioned paradox of > selecting a random cube from the output of a cube > factory. It seems natural to invoke the principle of > indifference in such situations - it's certainly not > *incorrect* use it as a way to determine Bayesian > priors - but somehow I think it is nevertheless > incorrect to imagine that our decision to invoke the > PI is always strictly *rational*. > > So I'm finding myself back in agreement here with > Gillies above, that the PI is "at most a heuristic > device"... > > -gts > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 12 16:37:58 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:37:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <070d01c7360f$10bcb380$95054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: John K Clark wrote: > Jef Allbright was asked "Concerning this universe you > assume... Do you assume it exists objectively, separate from > your awareness and knowledge?" > and he responded "No". > > I'm sorry Jef, but I just don't believe you. The reason I say > that is that although I may disagree with you from time to > time I have never seen any evidence that you are insane, and > I do not believe anyone this side of a loony bin really and > truly believes in Solipsism. John - I've given you plenty of evidence that I don't support solipsism. I've said that I can see where we're talking past each other. Nearly all the philosophical debate on this list is due to conflict between concepts defined too narrowly, and their supporters arguing only within a limited (and sometimes quite skewed) context. My intent in all these cases is to offer a model that is more coherent over a greater context. These debates are analogous to Newton arguing with Einstein about the "true" nature of gravity. Of course you're correct--just as Newton was absolutely correct--within his own context of understanding. Qualia, Self, Personal Identity, Free Will, Morality, ... each of these topics produces interminable debate because most people are still thinking of subjectivity in the form of an apple falling to the ground at 9.8m/s^2, (or, if they're more advanced: x m/s^2, to allow for different planetary bodies) rather than thinking in the form of curvature of space-time. Of course , any "normal" person would agree that the flame is hot, so go ahead and call it "objectively" hot. But it breaks down when extended, as do these other concepts built on an incomplete understanding of subjectivity, reinforced by our language, culture, and the dictates of our physical form. I don't argue that you're wrong about what "subjective" and "objective" means in common usage. I simply offer the gift of a more encompassing model that resolves these several "paradoxes" and paves the way to discovering new and interesting puzzles at a higher level. [I don't see any concise way to state this without appearing arrogant, sorry.] So, if you would like for me to acknowledge that I believe in an objective universe, then yes, I most certainly do. I believe that my interaction with the universe is consistent and mappable onto your similar interactions with the universe. I believe that even if I were absent from the universe, other people would continue to go on just as before. Yes, I believe in an objective universe. Truly I do. I say the preceding in all good faith, knowing that you and I should be able to agree within this common context. I use that same approach with co-workers, when my intent is to achieve an effective understanding and accomplish the stated goal. I use that same approach with my children, knowing that they don't yet have the life experience to grasp the bigger picture, and that no amount of explaining or clarifying can compensate for their more limited context of understanding. But as I re-read that paragraph of assent, I almost shudder from the incompleteness and implicit contradictions it represents. On the extropy list, some of us come from the rationalist point of view that abhors self-deceptions such as religion and feel-good mushy new-age thinking and anything that reeks of the subjective. These individuals are highly motivated to clean-up these mistakes so that we can better face hard reality and make progress. Others of us come from the rationalist point of view that, like the Scientific Method, acknowledges and embraces the realization that all knowledge is approximate and contingent, and like the Principle of Indifference, all likelihoods are part of a coherent (and expanding) whole. These individuals are highly motivated to clean-up our conceptual tools so that we can better understand the next layer of problems and make progress. Others of us look at all the apparently unproductive philosophical debate and wonder with mounting frustration why people would choose to waste their valuable time when the key issues affecting us are both obvious and urgent. These individuals are highly motivated to clean up our priorities and properly allocate our time and resources to make progress. Onward! - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jan 12 16:27:49 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:27:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:05 PM 1/11/2007, Keith wrote: > >I don't suppose he had signed up for cryonic suspension, had he? > >No. It is extremely unnerving that this generation of brilliant minds ... 1. Timothy Leary - signed up and then made other plans 2. FM-2030 - the voice of immortality - signed up but then problems with his caretaker but Alcor, hopefully, saved the day for him 2. Roy Walford only ready to sign up during last months 3. Robert Anton Wilson not signed up 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 Fri Jan 12 19:01:43 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:01:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> > 1. Timothy Leary - signed up and then made other plans > 2. FM-2030 - the voice of immortality - signed up but then problems with > his caretaker but Alcor, hopefully, saved the day for him > 2. Roy Walford only ready to sign up during last months > 3. Robert Anton Wilson not signed up > 4. Robert Heinlein -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From scerir at libero.it Fri Jan 12 19:07:09 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:07:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] bolas luminosas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701121907.l0CJ7KkB000928@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/01/dancing-ball-lightnings-in-lab.html Globular lightnings in (Brazilian) laboratories. From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jan 12 16:18:57 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:18:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Man Who Mistook a Concrete Pillar for a Global Threat Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112100817.0440a310@pop-server.austin.rr.com> http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005784.html 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 12 19:45:16 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:45:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) In-Reply-To: <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.co m> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> > > 1. Timothy Leary - signed up and then made other plans > > 2. FM-2030 - the voice of immortality - signed up but then problems with > > his caretaker but Alcor, hopefully, saved the day for him > > 2. Roy Walford only ready to sign up during last months > > 3. Robert Anton Wilson not signed up > >4. Robert Heinlein 5. Arthur C. Clarke (although not yet dead) 6. me (although not yet dead, I think) Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 20:14:34 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:14:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701120826w6acaeda0je59f3e29371ce24f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070112201434.95968.qmail@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > Yes, but in terms of the subjective theory of > probability, it seems that certain ways of using the > PI are "incoherent" whereas others are > "coherent." Not sure what you mean here. In the subjective theory, at least as I understand it, the PI is neither coherent nor incoherent. The supposed principle has no relevance whatsoever. > The paper I referenced described coherent ways of using > PI in the wine/water situation and other commonly > discussed situations... I agree about the wine/water situation but I'm not clear about the "other commonly discussed situations". > A rational mind may, at a certain point, not be able > to tell which way of using the PI is going to be coherent in the > context of future observations. True, I think. > But it should be able to tell which > ways will be coherent in the context of prior observations, if it > has adequate computational resources to do the calculations. Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Thanks at least for understanding my presentation of the problem. -gts From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 20:59:19 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:59:19 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/12/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > 6. me (although not yet dead, I think) > Damien Broderick 7. Nor me. Though I would like to see what the future looks like I have yet to see a probable future I would actually like to live in. Damien's problem is I think different from mine. I think Damien is stuck on the identity problem (feel free to correct if I am misinterpreting loose interpretations). I on the other hand, though it may have taken me a while to get there, accept that "me" is "me" is "me" no matter what the instantiation. I have real questions about wanting to project "me" into a reality that "I" find totally unacceptable. Odds IMO would currently dictate multiple probable future realities that "I" would object to or view as pointless. So here is a question, how many cryonics suspendees would choose to be brought back into reality with a lion about to rip out their throat? How do you guarantee that that is a low probability reanimation reality? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 22:46:51 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:46:51 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0701121446i113be118qd46f570af2e61ed9@mail.gmail.com> Friday, 12 January 2007 You could add Stanislaw Lem, de Camp, and many others to the list. The list expands to a limit of everyone who died after 12 January 1967. The list made an interesting seed for this thread, but it's a little long for my Inbox. [snip] > So here is a question, how many cryonics suspendees would choose to be > brought back into reality with a lion about to rip out their throat? How do > you guarantee that that is a low probability reanimation reality? > One can't guarantee anything past the cryonic preservation. You quite literally pay your money and take your chances at (a) resurrection and (b) the post-resurrection state of affairs. (See Larry Niven's "A World Out Of Time" for fiction exploring this theme.) I haven't yet signed up for cryonic preservation. In the case you give, knowing I'd face a lion at my throat on resurrection, I'll certainly do it. After all, I then know I return to life. Cryonics strikes me as a very poor bet, one I can only entertain it because offers the best odds of enjoying extreme longevity. As for picking reanimation settings, I don't see how one could work for that before suspension or during. Afterwards, a union of the reanimated might help with returning to life. Who knows what form that might take? You could have a case where compound interest makes the preserved ridiculously wealthy, and the reanimated form a new royalty. Call this "Buying Time," after Haldemann's novel. You could have a case where society has changed too much, and the reanimated enter a preserve or a retreat. Call that "Frozen Society of Friends." Perhaps the preserved get treated as an exploitable resource (Niven, again) or the reanimated as a persecuted minority. Call those "Yummy Corpsicles" and "The Frozen Letter". Combining the first two might offer the best chance of a future outcome where resuscitation can happen and where the preserved would like to arrive. Sign up with a provider, join the FSoF, and do your best while alive to shape such a future. Pretty vague recommendations, I admit. You already do your best every day to make a better future, right? Aside, I've lost friendships with people who refused to witness my cyronics sign-up. They thought I'd lost my mind, or fell victim to a swindle, or worst--reminded me I had immortality if only I'd except Christ into my life. Not once did they ask whether I thought it would work! They just assumed I'd some simplistic faith in a technological rapture, as if I'd mistaken Halperin's "The First Immortal" for scripture instead of entertainment. Documents describing the preserved as "patients" and the process as "suspension" aggravated the problem. Again, semantics matter. I ultimately decided I had no need for short-sighted hypocrites among my friends. A painful decision indeed, but one worth making. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From sentience at pobox.com Sat Jan 13 02:38:49 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:38:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Bedford Day, 12 January In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A84639.5090406@pobox.com> In honor of the first mortal blow struck against Death: Chris Manning wrote: > 40th anniversary of the first human cryonic suspension, that of Dr > James Bedford on 12 January, 1967. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Jan 13 03:49:07 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:49:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Singularity Video Message-ID: <003e01c736c5$c7cd5b90$6401a8c0@brainiac> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7519449927218912048&q=genre%3AFAITH_SPIRIT From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 06:50:33 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:50:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please (3) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070112010434.03d354e0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070112010434.03d354e0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701122250j31a2b81bmeb4ca8e77c5ba3b4@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/07, Keith Henson wrote: > Been thinking about how to get people into cryonics with increasingly good > mental tools (like memetics and evolutionary psychology) for over 20 years > now. Not much progress. Ideas would be appreciated. Sadly, if ideas were appreciated you wouldn't be having so much trouble getting people to accept the ones you offer. until the mainstream embraces the iFreeze, you're going to have a difficult time getting people to talk about it, let alone sign up for it. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Jan 13 04:33:51 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:33:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070112233340.03f86fd8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:58 PM 1/11/2007 -0600, you wrote: >Thursday, 11 January 2007 > >I don't suppose he had signed up for cryonic suspension, had he? No. I tried twice, once a few years before his wife died, and more recently several months ago. I did get a cell sample from his wife when died, which is in storage with a cryonics company. I am unable to do the same with RAW so if someone is on the scene, and could collect one, even a few roots of hairs, let me know. Raising a clone of a friend is better than nothing, but not much. Keith PS. Incidentally, the brain of his daughter Luna is in suspension. It was a really poor suspension, she was found a day after being murdered. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Jan 13 03:16:48 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:16:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) In-Reply-To: <5366105b0701121446i113be118qd46f570af2e61ed9@mail.gmail.co m> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070112221357.03e1faa0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:46 PM 1/12/2007 -0600, Jay wrote: >Friday, 12 January 2007 snip >I ultimately decided I had no need for short-sighted hypocrites among >my friends. A painful decision indeed, but one worth making. > > Cool! Never had those problems myself, but I am so weird that people who put up with me are more likely to follow my exampel than they are to give me any shit. If you ever get out near the Mortmain Mountains, come by for a visit. Keith From amara at amara.com Sat Jan 13 08:51:36 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:51:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] comet McNaught Message-ID: More on the brightest comet in 30 years here: http://asymptotia.com/2007/01/10/last-chance-for-some-to-see-mcnaught/ with my comments that might be interesting too, calculating the comet's speed and period. Those of you in the Northern Hemisphere can continue to watch the comet from the eyes of the spacecraft: SOHO and STEREO. Link pointers here: http://asymptotia.com/2007/01/10/last-chance-for-some-to-see-mcnaught/#comment-24450 Those of you in the Southern Hemisphere have a beautiful comet show in front of you now. 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 pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 09:26:37 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:26:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) In-Reply-To: <5366105b0701121446i113be118qd46f570af2e61ed9@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> <5366105b0701121446i113be118qd46f570af2e61ed9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/12/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > > Aside, I've lost friendships with people who refused to witness my > cyronics sign-up. They thought I'd lost my mind, or fell victim to a > swindle, or worst--reminded me I had immortality if only I'd except > Christ into my life. Not once did they ask whether I thought it would > work! They just assumed I'd some simplistic faith in a technological > rapture, as if I'd mistaken Halperin's "The First Immortal" for > scripture instead of entertainment. Documents describing the preserved > as "patients" and the process as "suspension" aggravated the problem. > Again, semantics matter. > > I ultimately decided I had no need for short-sighted hypocrites among > my friends. A painful decision indeed, but one worth making. > > > Hmmm. Sounds to me like you need a bit of a reality check here. Population of US - 300 million. Cryonics signups - 1,000 (approx.) Your standard for defining a short-sighted hypocrite seems unrealistic to me. You could get far more than 1,000 out of 300 million to encourage you in almost any enterprise. Magic, UFOs, crystal healing, psychics, astrology, etc. (You may claim that there are more than 1,000 who support cryonics but have not signed up yet. Possibly true, but it is a pretty polarizing subject). Just because a friend won't support you in one particular enterprise shouldn't make them persona non grata. Say you had a friend that was getting really interested in signing up for some Scientology courses. You think it will ruin them financially and psychologically. Wouldn't you at least refuse to assist them? Perhaps even try to persuade them that it wasn't a good idea? They will say that Scientology has millions of members (probably exaggerated) who think it is a good idea. Scientology (and other such organizations) encourage supporters (i.e. victims) to disconnect from non-members and outsiders so that they can ensure that contrary views are never encountered or discussed. This reinforces the group mindset. Keith has spent his life fighting this sort of thing. You shouldn't be trying to make cryonics into an article of faith by banishing non-believers into the wilderness. BillK From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 10:42:26 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:42:26 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> <5366105b0701121446i113be118qd46f570af2e61ed9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0701130242j481affa7m79a4a2d84c5133f8@mail.gmail.com> Saturday, 13 January 2007 On 1/13/07, BillK wrote: > On 1/12/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > I ultimately decided I had no need for short-sighted hypocrites among > > my friends. A painful decision indeed, but one worth making. > > > > > [snip] > You could get far more than 1,000 out of 300 million to encourage you > in almost any enterprise. Magic, UFOs, crystal healing, psychics, > astrology, etc. > (You may claim that there are more than 1,000 who support cryonics but > have not signed up yet. Possibly true, but it is a pretty polarizing > subject). > Noted, but I don't understand what you argue here. The popularity of an idea does not signify its truthfulness any more than the popularity of a movie or music signifies its artistic merit. [snip] > sort of thing. You shouldn't be trying to make cryonics into an > article of faith by banishing non-believers into the wilderness. You calling the lack of my company "wilderness" flatters me too much. :) I agree with you that cryonics shouldn't serve as an article of faith. Humanity has quite enough blind belief, and could use a lot less of that. I agree with the obvious: cryonics remains unproven. I really don''t care whether anyone thinks it might someday lead to resuscitation. I think there exists a small non-zero chance it will, but my former friends never once asked me. Their refusal was based on religious faith (by definition surpassing understanding) or a snap judgment. Irrational in the first case and thoughtless in the second. Not the kind of people I wanted for friends, and I couldn't keep ignoring that. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 13:44:21 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:44:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Robert Anton Wilson 1932 - 2007 (2) In-Reply-To: <5366105b0701130242j481affa7m79a4a2d84c5133f8@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> <5366105b0701121446i113be118qd46f570af2e61ed9@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0701130242j481affa7m79a4a2d84c5133f8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/13/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > I agree with you that cryonics shouldn't serve as an article of faith. > Humanity has quite enough blind belief, and could use a lot less of > that. I agree with the obvious: cryonics remains unproven. > Depends upon your definition of cryonics. I think I've seen a number in the press sometime in the last year that there are ~80,000 people walking around alive on the planet today whom I would classify products of "reanimation" (via freezing & thawing of embryos used in IVF). So, *only* if you narrowly define cryonics as the freezing and reanimation of an entire human being can you assert it is "unproven". Indeed, if you *press* people who will readily eat frozen fish, frozen shrimp, frozen meat, frozen vegetables, even entire frozen entrees, and who can hardly claim that freezing eggs, sperm, embryos, skin cells, etc. doesn't work, I think you will find them floundering in circa 1966 "It is impossible to go to the moon" argument land. The basis for the argument isn't that it is "impossible". The basis for the argument is entirely "nobody has done it -- yet". Indeed, probably 99.99+% of those 300,000,000 people don't know enough to begin to explain *why* suspension and reanimation of entire human beings doesn't currently work. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 16:56:23 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:56:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What is a correct sample space? Clearly something like a correct sample space exists in the case of the wine/water paradox (I agree with Ben's referenced paper on this point) but I don't see the same as true in the case of the Bertrand class of paradoxes. Setting aside the cube factory paradox for the moment, consider this more famous example: "Consider a fixed circle and select a chord at random. What is the probability that this random chord is longer than the side of the equilateral triangle inscribed in the circle?" (as given by Gillies, 2000) At least three very plausible solutions exist to this problem, and I think it can be shown that an infinity of them exist, each which gives a different answer to the question (depending of course on our choice of sample space). ET Jaynes tried to solve this paradox, and may have done so to his own way of thinking. I think Jaynes would call himself an objective (or perhaps logical or empirical) Bayesian. He invented (on his own rational authority, I suppose) some additional properties of randomness which he believes should apply to random chords, and then tossed broom straws onto a circle drawn on the floor to show his definition of "random chord" to be superior to the others. But Gillies points out that Jaynes' proposed solution in no way shows the PI to be a logical rather than a heuristic principle. He writes of a hypothetical researcher who uses the PI in the same (heuristic) way as Jaynes to arrive initially at a different but mistaken result. Note that, (unless I missed something), aside from the wine/water paradox, the paper by Durack(?) does not actually *answer* any other paradoxes such as the one above, except to explain that not enough information is given. So what should we do in real-world cases in which not enough information is given? I think we can and should usually still apply the PI, but, as I suggested in my message before last, I think we should agree with the subjectivists on this question and not imagine we are doing something grounded firmly in objective logic. The PI should be considered a handy rule of thumb, a heuristic tool and nothing else. At least this is my present thinking on this subject, and it's likely to change as I continue reading and discussing these issues with informed people. I have not yet personally decided which theory of probability is most acceptable to me. -gts (This message is a modified reply to what I thought was a public message from Ben) From amara at amara.com Sat Jan 13 17:05:18 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:05:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] comet McNaught !! Message-ID: OK, you guys, last chance. It _is_ visible still from the Northern Hemisphere, but it gets lost in the horizon haze pretty quickly. I believe now when I hear that it is the brightest comet in 30 years. You North Americans should seize your chance (it's night in Europe and too late; we already saw it :-) ). I suggest for you to look tonight, because it might be too difficult to see after tonight. And it's beautiful! Too many things this week prevented me from looking for the comet, until tonight. WOW. I could see it with my naked eye looking over Rome, but it is easier to see with binoculars. So at sunset- To see it, look at the spot where the Sun is setting (but DON'T LOOK AT THE SUN.. that's dangerous). Then scan your eye up from the sunset location and you should be able to see it. If there is too much haze, then you'll need binoculars, but otherwise you should be able to see it with your naked eye. It looks like a comet; that is a fuzzy round ball with a tail above. Here is more about how to find it: http://skytonight.com/observing/home/5133461.html Look Up!! 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 Sat Jan 13 17:08:09 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:08:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> > Setting aside the cube factory paradox for the moment, > consider this more famous example: > > "Consider a fixed circle and select a chord at random. > What is the probability that this random chord is > longer than the side of the equilateral triangle > inscribed in the circle?" (as given by Gillies, 2000) > > At least three very plausible solutions exist to this > problem, and I think it can be shown that an infinity > of them exist, each which gives a different answer to > the question (depending of course on our choice of > sample space). All the Bertrand paradox shows is that the natural language concept "select at random" is ambiguous, and can be disambiguated to yield multiple meanings. Big whoop ;-) -- Ben G From ben at goertzel.org Sat Jan 13 17:10:53 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:10:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> > So what should we do in real-world cases in which not > enough information is given? I think we can and should > usually still apply the PI, but, as I suggested in my > message before last, I think we should agree with the > subjectivists on this question and not imagine we are > doing something grounded firmly in objective logic. > The PI should be considered a handy rule of thumb, a > heuristic tool and nothing else. This agrees with my philosophy of probability. I find the subjectivist interpretation to be fundamentally correct; but, I also find that it does not give sufficient guidance regarding how to carry out probabilistic reasoning in practical situations. Objectivist approaches, in spite of their underlying conceptual weaknesses, have given us some useful heuristic tools which may be used in practical problems, but whose utility should ultimately be judged in terms of the subjectivist interpretation. (And, of course, the use of "subjectivist" here is technical in the sense of "subjectivist vs. frequentist", I'm not trying to open up arguments about the objectivity vs. subjectivity of ultimate reality, etc. ...) -- Ben G From jonkc at att.net Sat Jan 13 17:21:48 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:21:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? (was: Robert Anton Wilson) References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Robert Bradbury Wrote: > Though I would like to see what the future looks like I have yet to see a > probable future I would actually like to live in I can't say I agree with you, but there is no disputing matters of taste. I am however curious about what disturbs you; I mean if you don't like the newfangled ways you could always become the future equivalent of the Amish. And whatever the future holds you must admit it won't be dull. > how many cryonics suspendees would choose to be brought back into reality > with a lion about to rip out their throat? It seems unlikely to me that a society that has mastered nanotechnology and the reanimation problem is unable to master the lion problem. > How do you guarantee [.] There are no guarantees in life, you can only play the odds. John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 17:36:34 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:36:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070113173634.99160.qmail@web36510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Benjamin Goertzel wrote: >> The PI should be considered a handy rule of thumb, >> a heuristic tool and nothing else. > > This agrees with my philosophy of probability. This sets us at odds with the logical theorists, then. That theory stands or falls on this question. > (And, of course, the use of "subjectivist" here is > technical in the sense of "subjectivist vs. frequentist"... Yes. I use it in an even more limited sense, in which the subjective theory is one of several epistemic theories, among them the logical theory (including logical bayesianism) which I define as objective but not in the physical sense of objective as in the frequentist and propensity theories. A key question here, at let me ask you what you think on this, is that of whether two rational individuals with the same background knowledge might be permitted to hold different judgmental probabilities about the same question. As I mentioned to Jef, I define a true subjectivist as one who answers yes to that question. -gts From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 13 18:25:03 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:25:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200701131835.l0DIZTRK004786@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Goertzel > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] what is probability? > > > Setting aside the cube factory paradox for the moment, > > consider this more famous example: > > > > "Consider a fixed circle and select a chord at random. > > What is the probability that this random chord is > > longer than the side of the equilateral triangle > > inscribed in the circle?" (as given by Gillies, 2000) > > > > At least three very plausible solutions exist to this > > problem, and I think it can be shown that an infinity > > of them exist, each which gives a different answer to > > the question (depending of course on our choice of > > sample space)... Cool problem! I see how one could get either one third or one half with what appears to be equally valid assumptions. I think I see how one could argue that there are infinitely many solutions via the same path I found the other two. Shows to go ya, statistics are tricky things. Please I missed a few posts while changing diapers; what is the cube factory paradox? spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 13 18:39:05 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:39:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? Message-ID: <200701131854.l0DIsShP022441@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Goertzel > > > > > > "Consider a fixed circle and select a chord at random. > > > What is the probability that this random chord is > > > longer than the side of the equilateral triangle > > > inscribed in the circle?" (as given by Gillies, 2000) > > > > > > At least three very plausible solutions exist to this > > > problem... > > > Cool problem! I see how one could get either one third or one half with > what appears to be equally valid assumptions... spike I set this up empirically. The computer says the answer is 1/3. But I can't be sure I didn't somehow program in the answer. spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 19:39:04 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:39:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? (was: Robert Anton Wilson) In-Reply-To: <004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> <004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 1/13/07, John K Clark wrote: > > Robert Bradbury Wrote: > > > Though I would like to see what the future looks like I have yet to see > a > > probable future I would actually like to live in > > I can't say I agree with you, but there is no disputing matters of taste. > I > am however curious about what disturbs you; Laws of physics one would hope are fixed (at least in this universe), or if not, they are changing along vectors which we can calculate (if they were changing quickly the long term organization of matter would be at risk). Our current path is *still* on the path of understanding the laws of physics and understanding what they have created to date. I have little doubt that in a current/post singularity era that the laws of physics plus what semi-random evolutionary processes are capable of creating will be well understood. So the trajectory of humanity (and/or other species more advanced than ours) will be different. We cannot simply conquer the frontier (that is "simple"), instead we have to both create it and explore it. Not that that is difficult (SecondLife may serve as an example) but there are clear cost/benefit tradeoffs. Would I want to wake up in an environment where I am clearly obsolete and where the material in my body (or the computer hosting my mind) might clearly be dedicated to purposes more useful than that which I am likely to manifest? I mean if you don't like the newfangled ways you could always become the > future equivalent of the Amish. And whatever the future holds you must admit > it won't be dull. No, dull, certainly not. Pointless would be the question one confronts. To exist, simply to consume energy in the universe (being entropic) seems rather counterproductive. To be extropic you have to be on the cutting edge. We tolerate the Amish currently because we are not up against the limits. To tolerate them in the future you have to argue (a) that the limits will never be reached; or (b) that they have value. I would argue that value fades over time. > how many cryonics suspendees would choose to be brought back into reality > > with a lion about to rip out their throat? > > It seems unlikely to me that a society that has mastered nanotechnology > and > the reanimation problem is unable to master the lion problem. The "lion" is metaphorical. Given the likely rates of development on the singularity curve, when we have the technology for reanimation the reanimates are likely to be classed as antiques. Of course in our current society we value antiques (presumably because they represent something from whence we have come or something we can learn from). When the future determines that antiques are no longer relevant, on what swampy ground do the reanimates stand? [This is the crux of the "Lions at ones throat" argument.] Mind you, *I* didn't create this track (other than in outlining the feasibility of Matrioshka Brains and their capacities). The foundation lies in the work of Robin Hanson ("If uploads come first") and in the work of various Singularitarians. > How do you guarantee [.] [snip...] > Agreed. There are no guarantees. But the future one prepares for (and potentially tries to create) presumably reflects understandings as to the outcome of the odds. If you are going to "prepare" for a future, e.g. being reanimated as a prior suspendee, then presumably you should be (a) working towards creating that future; (b) working against futures which would be against that. As I see the current future, there will be little respect for the Amish (current cryonics suspendees). They will be as cockroaches currently are in NYC. To argue the contrary you have to argue the emplacement and maintenance of a moral system that values cockroaches in the shadow of the singularity. [Please bear in mind that morality may be context dependent.] Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 13 19:41:57 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:41:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <200701131854.l0DIsShP022441@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200701131941.l0DJfu0a010350@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > > Cool problem! I see how one could get either one third or one half with > > what appears to be equally valid assumptions... spike > > > I set this up empirically. The computer says the answer is 1/3. But I > can't be sure I didn't somehow program in the answer. > > spike Suspicion confirmed. I can change one line of code to another assumption that is equally reasonable and get 1/2. Change the same line of code and get any value between 1/2 and 1/3. Kewalllllll. {8-] spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Jan 13 17:23:29 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:23:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Eyes ... interesting article In-Reply-To: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070113122249.03dbcf90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> For Human Eyes Only By MICHAEL TOMASELLO Trying to explain why the whites of human eyes are larger than those of other primates leads to one of the deepest and most controversial topics in the modern study of human evolution: the evolution of cooperation. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/opinion/13tomasello.html?th&emc=th From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 13 20:01:19 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:01:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <20070113173634.99160.qmail@web36510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: gts wrote: > A key question here, at let me ask you what you think > on this, is that of whether two rational individuals > with the same background knowledge might be permitted > to hold different judgmental probabilities about the > same question. > As I mentioned to Jef, I define a true subjectivist as > one who answers yes to that question. Gordon, remember when you started this thread and I asked whether you thought it was like the Qualia Debate? You're now at the point where I can highlight why I made that comparison. Consider the following paraphrase of your question above: "A key question here is whether two machines, each functioning as rational processing units, with the same inputs, might output different results to the same question." If you think they can provide different outputs, then your thinking is based on an assumption that (1) "rational" is different for different agents, or (2) "input" is different for different agents. In either case, there's an assumption of something special (something undefined) going on in the subjective processing of the agent, just as people assume something special going on which they call qualia. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4048 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 13 20:13:15 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:13:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? (was: Robert AntonWilson) References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Robert Bradbury wrote: > Laws of physics one would hope are fixed (at least in this universe), > or if not, they are changing along vectors which we can calculate > (if they were changing quickly the long term organization of matter > would be at risk). Our current path is *still* on the path of > understanding the laws of physics and understanding what they have > created to date. I have little doubt that in a current/post singularity > era that the laws of physics plus what semi-random evolutionary > processes are capable of creating will be well understood. So the > trajectory of humanity (and/or other species more advanced than > ours) will be different. We cannot simply conquer the frontier (that > is "simple"), instead we have to both create it and explore it. Not > that that is difficult (SecondLife may serve as an example) but there > are clear cost/benefit tradeoffs. > Would I want to wake up in an environment where I am clearly obsolete > and where the material in my body (or the computer hosting my mind) > might clearly be dedicated to purposes more useful than that which I am > likely to manifest? This is a good example of why I keeping pointing out that it's not "survival" (whatever that could possibly mean in a rapidly changing environment) that matters, but rather the promotion of one's values into the future. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4938 bytes Desc: not available URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 20:40:21 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:40:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? (was: Robert AntonWilson) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> <004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 1/13/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > This is a good example of why I keeping pointing out that it's not > "survival" (whatever that could possibly mean in a rapidly changing > environment) that matters, but rather the promotion of one's values into the > future. Agreed, though I perhaps like Damien am attached to my current instantiation. I doubt most of us would have a problem with exiting stage left provided a clear picture of stage right were presented (and we happened to agree that that might be the best path forward). The reason that the Amish still exist is that nobody has ever convinced them that their existence is pointless. (A separate moral question is whether people should be allowed to propagate memes that could be classified as maintaining a pointless existence?) Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 21:27:25 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:27:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? (was: Robert AntonWilson) In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> <004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <5366105b0701131327o2cbef768tfa0e47e7b2c314f1@mail.gmail.com> The Amish serve as a memetic diversity preserve. Similar groups include Civil War re-enactors, the Society for Creative Anarchronism, black powder weapons enthusiasts, fencers, monasteries, nuclear weapons designers, and so on. They do not consume overwhelming amounts of resources (excepting the last two). Allowing the expression of their memes preserves this against future need. Aside, who can fill in these blanks? gene:meme::genotype:? gene:phenotype::meme:? -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 13 21:31:29 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:31:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? (was: RobertAntonWilson) References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Robert Bradbury wrote: On 1/13/07, Jef Allbright wrote: This is a good example of why I keeping pointing out that it's not "survival" (whatever that could possibly mean in a rapidly changing environment) that matters, but rather the promotion of one's values into the future. > Agreed, though I perhaps like Damien am attached > to my current instantiation. I doubt most of us would > have a problem with exiting stage left provided a > clear picture of stage right were presented (and we > happened to agree that that might be the best path > forward). > The reason that the Amish still exist is that nobody > has ever convinced them that their existence is > pointless. (A separate moral question is whether > people should be allowed to propagate memes > that could be classified as maintaining a pointless > existence?) This is in line with the point I was trying to make to Anders recently. We can never know the full extended consequences (i.e. the rightness or morality) of a specific act, such as bringing about the end of the Amish subculture. But we can increasingly know principles of effective interaction that tend to promote our values. We are becoming increasingly aware of principles of cooperative, synergetic, positive-sum growth. We are becoming increasingly aware of the principle of requisite variety relative to a robust ecological growth. We are becoming increasingly aware of the principle of diversity providing the raw stuff necessary for selection and growth. This is the empirical basis of an argument for the widely shared value of "liberty", with all such "moral" arguments leading to an argument for growth in the direction of a constantly evolving values. So, on the basis of *principles* that support the extended growth of our values, we find that we should want to promote a certain amount of diversity, even though some of those diverse branches appear to unproductive. What is the optimum degree of diversity in this multidimensional matrix of values? I don't know but I have a strong intuition that a formula will arise out of research on adaptive systems. This is closely related to the question of the optimum research budget for a business, and related to Google's policy of allocating 20% of employees's time to activities unrelated to their direct business goals. The more enlightened among us have long taught the wisdom of implementing from principles rather than towards ends, but it's only recently that we approach the technological capability for a general framework for such collaborative decision-making leading to increasingly "moral" actions. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 13 21:28:32 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:28:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] powers of ten Message-ID: <200701132139.l0DLdRrN002904@andromeda.ziaspace.com> This is cool: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/ spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 21:29:17 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:29:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <200701131854.l0DIsShP022441@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701131854.l0DIsShP022441@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:39:05 -0500, spike wrote: >> > > "Consider a fixed circle and select a chord at random. >> > > What is the probability that this random chord is >> > > longer than the side of the equilateral triangle >> > > inscribed in the circle?" (as given by Gillies, 2000) >> > > >> > > At least three very plausible solutions exist to this >> > > problem... >> >> >> Cool problem! Here is more discussion of it: http://www.cut-the-knot.org/bertrand.shtml Bertrand's paradox has been around since 1888, and was one the nails in the coffin of the classical theory of probability. It still haunts certain modern probability theorists, (namely those who would have us believe that probability theory is a branch of logic). -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jan 13 22:12:27 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:12:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <20070113173634.99160.qmail@web36510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070113160558.0222e3e8@satx.rr.com> At 12:01 PM 1/13/2007 -0800, Jef wrote: >"A key question here is whether two machines, each functioning as >rational processing units, with the same inputs, might output >different results to the same question." > >If you think they can provide different outputs, then your thinking >is based on an assumption that (1) "rational" is different for >different agents, or (2) "input" is different for different >agents. In either case, there's an assumption of something special >(something undefined) going on in the subjective processing of the agent, Well, to be awful trivial: J and G are rational machines closely resembling humans. Input to both the question: Posit that either but not both J or G must perish; which is the preferred selection? For some values of G and J, I'd be startled if they output the same results. Damien Broderick From velvethum at hotmail.com Sat Jan 13 22:50:12 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:50:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Robert Bradbury wrote: > Would I want to wake up in an environment where I am clearly obsolete > and where the material in my body (or the computer hosting my mind) > might clearly be dedicated to purposes more useful than that which I am > likely to manifest? Jef Albright wrote: This is a good example of why I keeping pointing out that it's not "survival" (whatever that could possibly mean in a rapidly changing environment) that matters, but rather the promotion of one's values into the future. ---- This seems noble but isn't "promotion of one's values into the future" merely a subgoal of the survival supergoal? Isn't it the case that people care about their values simply because they think they would feel better *living* in a society that nurtures those values? It always helps if we examine the first causes of our beliefs. And if we do we might discover that there exists even higher goal than survival that drives our behavior. It is simply pleasure. That is our true supergoal while "promotion of values" is just a natural consequence of that goal. I imagine when people first hear about pleasure, they immediately think of things like chocolate and sex and jump to an easy conclusion that to seek pleasure for pleasure's sake would somehow be immoral. But pleasure comes in many flavors. Seeing your children grow up into decent people generates pleasure. Accomplishing some difficult and noble goal induces pleasure. Helping other people and wanting nothing in return causes pleasure. Love is pleasure. Everything we do has the same common denominator that drives our behavior. If survival was not a necessary condition for experiencing pleasure, people would not care about survival, but since it is, that's the topic that usually steals the headlines. But let's not forget that survival is only a subgoal of the higher goal that gives meaning to our lives. Slawomir From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 22:36:04 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:36:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <200701131835.l0DIZTRK004786@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701131835.l0DIZTRK004786@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:25:03 -0500, spike wrote: > Please I missed a few posts while changing diapers; what is the cube > factory paradox? Here is the cube paradox but in a form different from the way I described it the first time [1]. In this version there is no cube factory and no unknown distribution of cubes. ==== 1. Suppose there is a cube hidden in a box. A label on the box says the cube has a side length between 3 and 5 cm. 2. We don't know the actual side length, but we might assume that all values are equally likely and simply pick the mid-value of 4 cm. 3. The information on the label allows us to calculate that the surface area of the cube is between 54 and 150 cm^2. We don't know the actual surface area, but we might assume that all values are equally likely and simply pick the mid-value of 102 cm^2. 4. The information on the label allows us to calculate that the volume of the cube is between 27 and 125 cm^3. We don't know the actual volume, but we might assume that all values are equally likely and simply pick the mid-value of 76 cm^3. 5. However, we have now reached the impossible conclusion that the cube has a side length of 4 cm, a surface area of 102 cm^2, and a volume of 76 cm^3! ==== This is in essence just another form of the Bertrand paradox of selecting a random chord. The contradiction in this case arises from the fact that we invoked the principle of indifference (the logical, or maybe not so logical, principle that given no evidence to prefer one outcome over another, we should assign them equal probabilities) in steps 2, 3 and 4. -gts 1. The cube factory version is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This version is from Wikipedia. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 13 23:52:41 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:52:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <20070113173634.99160.qmail@web36510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070113160558.0222e3e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Damien Broderick Sent: Sat 1/13/2007 2:12 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] what is probability? At 12:01 PM 1/13/2007 -0800, Jef wrote: >"A key question here is whether two machines, each functioning as >rational processing units, with the same inputs, might output >different results to the same question." > >If you think they can provide different outputs, then your thinking >is based on an assumption that (1) "rational" is different for >different agents, or (2) "input" is different for different >agents. In either case, there's an assumption of something special >(something undefined) going on in the subjective processing of the agent, Well, to be awful trivial: J and G are rational machines closely resembling humans. Input to both the question: Posit that either but not both J or G must perish; which is the preferred selection? For some values of G and J, I'd be startled if they output the same results. Damien - Clever enough, but it's clear that the inputs are not identical if these two "rational machines" have each received different information relevant to the question, namely, input distinguishing between their complementary stakes in the outcome. Or would you argue that a machine's information about its relationship to other is not input, but rather some special undefinable form of knowing such as qualia? - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4284 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 13 23:53:17 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:53:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <20070113173634.99160.qmail@web36510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070113160558.0222e3e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Damien Broderick Sent: Sat 1/13/2007 2:12 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] what is probability? At 12:01 PM 1/13/2007 -0800, Jef wrote: >"A key question here is whether two machines, each functioning as >rational processing units, with the same inputs, might output >different results to the same question." > >If you think they can provide different outputs, then your thinking >is based on an assumption that (1) "rational" is different for >different agents, or (2) "input" is different for different >agents. In either case, there's an assumption of something special >(something undefined) going on in the subjective processing of the agent, Well, to be awful trivial: J and G are rational machines closely resembling humans. Input to both the question: Posit that either but not both J or G must perish; which is the preferred selection? For some values of G and J, I'd be startled if they output the same results. Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ 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: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4124 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 14 01:09:21 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:09:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Heartland Sent: Sat 1/13/2007 2:50 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? Robert Bradbury wrote: > Would I want to wake up in an environment where I am clearly obsolete > and where the material in my body (or the computer hosting my mind) > might clearly be dedicated to purposes more useful than that which I am > likely to manifest? Jef Albright wrote: This is a good example of why I keeping pointing out that it's not "survival" (whatever that could possibly mean in a rapidly changing environment) that matters, but rather the promotion of one's values into the future. ---- This seems noble but isn't "promotion of one's values into the future" merely a subgoal of the survival supergoal? Isn't it the case that people care about their values simply because they think they would feel better *living* in a society that nurtures those values? It always helps if we examine the first causes of our beliefs. And if we do we might discover that there exists even higher goal than survival that drives our behavior. It is simply pleasure. That is our true supergoal while "promotion of values" is just a natural consequence of that goal. I imagine when people first hear about pleasure, they immediately think of things like chocolate and sex and jump to an easy conclusion that to seek pleasure for pleasure's sake would somehow be immoral. But pleasure comes in many flavors. Seeing your children grow up into decent people generates pleasure. Accomplishing some difficult and noble goal induces pleasure. Helping other people and wanting nothing in return causes pleasure. Love is pleasure. Everything we do has the same common denominator that drives our behavior. If survival was not a necessary condition for experiencing pleasure, people would not care about survival, but since it is, that's the topic that usually steals the headlines. But let's not forget that survival is only a subgoal of the higher goal that gives meaning to our lives. Slawomir - A problem with thinking in terms of goals and supergoals is that it's teleological. No organism has a viewpoint outside itself from which it can actually formulate original goals for itself. Such thinking leads to the well-known paradoxes of free-will. You believe you choose to seek pleasure, and this requires that you survive, requiring that you eat, and so on down the line. Uhm, where did your starting goal of pleasure-seeking come from? Who chose it? Or might an evolutionary explanation be simpler? Imagine a strange world where simple organisms evolved, simply because certain of the diverse configurations of matter had greater fitness within their environment. As adaptations accumulated, those with greater fitness tended to increase in complexity, but at each step of the rachet there was only a simple rule--what worked better tended to survive and propagate. We could describe the organisms in this world as each carrying an internal model of "what tends to work", acquired mainly from its ancestors' hard lessons. In this model are values encoding the bits of "what tends to work." Each of the organisms follows a simple rule: Try to affect change in your environment such that the future more closely matches values in your model. So all the way from single-celled organisms, through quite complex vertebrates, to organisms that could reflectively model their own actions for improved powers of prediction and control, even to groups of organisms acting as a kind of superorganism that could together work better than any number of individual organisms working separately--all that was happening, every step of the way, was a kind of feedback loop with each organism trying to affect change in its future environment to make it more closely match the values in its internal model. Some of the adaptations had side-effects, some bad, some good in unexpected new ways. The adaptation that provided an organism with reflexive modeling lead to qualitatively new capabilities allowing those organisms to affect their enviroment in powerful (and dangerous) new ways (and also lead to a significant amount of wasted effort (which they called philosophizing) as the model tried to model itself in ways that made sense to its pre-existing set of values. What a simple way of describing the origins of complex behaviors! No goals or supergoals to pull things along in any predetermined direction. Just blind execution of a system that simply tries to minimize the difference between what it senses in its environment and encoded information about what tended to work in the past, tending to adapt in the direction of what works over increasing scope. Of course, that's just a hypothetical world. We *know* we're different. We know because we can feel it directly. Just ask any body how it knows and it will tell you. It...just...knows. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 01:39:05 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:09:05 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] powers of ten In-Reply-To: <200701132139.l0DLdRrN002904@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701132139.l0DLdRrN002904@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0701131739r7b22d30flb598b58efe71415@mail.gmail.com> Wow... that's spectacular On 14/01/07, spike wrote: > > > > > > > > This is cool: > > http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/ > > spike > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jan 14 01:21:27 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:21:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:08:09 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > All the Bertrand paradox shows is that the natural language concept > "select at random" is ambiguous, and can be disambiguated to yield > multiple meanings. What then is the one true disambiguated meaning of "select at random"? Or is there no such thing? I mentioned Jaynes' proposed solution. Apparently Jaynes went to great lengths to derive what he hoped would be the one true meaning of "selecting a random chord". I've seen a summary of his argument and it seems quite plausible, but even he stopped short of saying he had proved his case in any formal logical sense. And even assuming his argument is correct for the random chord paradox, how is it in any way translatable to the other paradoxes? If the Bertrand paradox is fundamentally unsolvable then it seems to me the principle of indifference is toast as a logical principle, and if so then it seems two rational agents would be free in certain cases to use different bayesian priors. I would guess that thought is probably anathema to AI researchers; we want to know all robots of a kind will think and act identically under identical circumstances, yes? Or do we? Real humans seem not to. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 01:29:31 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:29:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701131644j1a0c5457n4097655e7d0d98bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> <840467.28432.qm@web36513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701131644j1a0c5457n4097655e7d0d98bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:44:52 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: >> As I mentioned to Jef, I define a true subjectivist as >> one who answers yes to that question. > > > YES Ah, you partially answered my last post, which crossed with yours. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 14 02:20:18 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:20:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of gts > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:08:09 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel > wrote: >> All the Bertrand paradox shows is that the natural language concept >> "select at random" is ambiguous, and can be disambiguated to yield >> multiple meanings. > What then is the one true disambiguated meaning of "select at random"? Or > is there no such thing? There is no one true meaning here. The meaning of "random" is, as all meaning, dependent on context. Sheeesh. > I mentioned Jaynes' proposed solution. Apparently Jaynes went to great > lengths to derive what he hoped would be the one true meaning of > "selecting a random chord". I've seen a summary of his argument and it > seems quite plausible, but even he stopped short of saying he had proved > his case in any formal logical sense. He highlighted the problem being what we mean by random, then suggested that we could choose to apply a common-sense meaning of random, and we could likewise choose a definition of random that works over as wide a context as possible; for example: scale invariance, translational invariance, rotational invariance... pick as many as you like, the more the better. No one mentioned time invariance but that would be equally valid. This is the maximum entropy principle I mention earlier can guide us. > And even assuming his argument is correct for the random chord paradox, > how is it in any way translatable to the other paradoxes? Huh? > If the Bertrand paradox is fundamentally unsolvable Like all paradox (in principle), it's perfectly solvable once you define it properly within sufficient context that its meaning is unambiguous. > then it seems to me > the principle of indifference is toast as a logical principle, Huh? The principle of indifference is not some trick or evan an algorithm. It's a very fundamental principle describing our interaction with observed reality. There's no known exception, only misapplication. > and if so > then it seems two rational agents would be free in certain cases to use > different bayesian priors. There's absolutley nothing wrong with using different priors, but it's true you should use the best prior available. > I would guess that thought is probably anathema to AI researchers; we want > to know all robots of a kind will think and act identically under > identical circumstances, yes? Or do we? Real humans seem not to. To the extent that identical robots are in identical circumstances, of course they will act identically. This is as fundamentally true as the principal of indifference that you're having trouble with. Show us two identical humans in identical circumstances. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5568 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 14 02:44:53 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:44:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Eyes ... interesting article References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070113122249.03dbcf90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Keith Henson For Human Eyes Only By MICHAEL TOMASELLO Trying to explain why the whites of human eyes are larger than those of other primates leads to one of the deepest and most controversial topics in the modern study of human evolution: the evolution of cooperation. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/opinion/13tomasello.html?th&emc=th Interesting article, but throughout I kept wondering how such an adaptation could have evolved, being more likely to be exploited by competitors than cooperators among humans. Perhaps because we can so easily deceive with those same eyes? - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3692 bytes Desc: not available URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Sun Jan 14 03:27:05 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:27:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: If survival was not a necessary condition for experiencing pleasure, people would not care about survival, but since it is, that's the topic that usually steals the headlines. But let's not forget that survival is only a subgoal of the higher goal that gives meaning to our lives. Jef: A problem with thinking in terms of goals and supergoals is that it's teleological. No organism has a viewpoint outside itself from which it can actually formulate original goals for itself. Such thinking leads to the well-known paradoxes of free-will. You believe you choose to seek pleasure, and this requires that you survive, requiring that you eat, and so on down the line. Uhm, where did your starting goal of pleasure-seeking come from? Who chose it? ---- I would never imply that pleasure supergoal is a choice. It never was. As you point out, what we are and what we want has been caused by blind evolutionary mechanism. We've been all hardwired to seek pleasure and have no choice in this matter. My point is that your choice to promote values even at a cost of your survival is still motivated by the higher goal of pleasure. There's a big difference between what we consciously want and what we need. People pursue wealth all their life and when they get rich they find they needed something else instead, like love or fun. IMHO, a similar gap exists between a goal of promoting values and a desire to experience pleasure. The sooner we acknowledge this, the sooner we can satisfy this need as we adjust our decisions and views in light of this observation. (I realize that pleasure is how evolution tricks us into spreading our genes, but I doubt you can find an argument that could show objectively that seeking pleasure is bad or immoral. If you or someone else can show why wireheading is wrong without resorting to the obvious "yuck factor" I would like to read it.) S. From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Sun Jan 14 04:31:18 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:31:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <45A9B216.90908@thomasoliver.net> Jef Allbright wrote: > [...] So all the way from single-celled organisms, through quite > complex vertebrates, to organisms that could reflectively model their > own actions for improved powers of prediction and control, even to > groups of organisms acting as a kind of superorganism that could > together work better than any number of individual organisms working > separately--all that was happening, every step of the way, was a kind > of feedback loop with each organism trying to affect change in its > future environment to make it more closely match the values in > its internal model. Some of the adaptations had side-effects, some > bad, some good in unexpected new ways. The adaptation that provided > an organism with reflexive modeling lead to qualitatively new > capabilities allowing those organisms to affect their enviroment in > powerful (and dangerous) new ways (and also lead to a significant > amount of wasted effort (which they called philosophizing) as the > model tried to model itself in ways that made sense to its > pre-existing set of values. > > What a simple way of describing the origins of complex behaviors! No > goals or supergoals to pull things along in any predetermined > direction. Just blind execution of a system that simply tries to > minimize the difference between what it senses in its environment and > encoded information about what tended to work in the past, tending to > adapt in the direction of what works over increasing scope. > > - Jef > I think Mark Tilden' s work supports this and think you deserve a charter membership in the Cult of the Infinite Feedback Loop. : ) -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Jan 14 06:09:08 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 01:09:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070114010905.03a8bd68@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:50 PM 1/13/2007 -0500, Heartland wrote: snip >Jef Albright wrote: >This is a good example of why I keeping pointing out that it's not "survival" >(whatever that could possibly mean in a rapidly changing environment) that >matters, >but rather the promotion of one's values into the future. >---- > >This seems noble but isn't "promotion of one's values into the future" >merely a >subgoal of the survival supergoal? Isn't it the case that people care >about their >values simply because they think they would feel better *living* in a >society that >nurtures those values? > >It always helps if we examine the first causes of our beliefs. And if we >do we >might discover that there exists even higher goal than survival that >drives our >behavior. It is simply pleasure. That is our true supergoal while >"promotion of >values" is just a natural consequence of that goal. Let's recast this in evolutionary psychology terms. Through the effects of differential genetic survival, evolution has shaped us indeed to have higher goals than survival, the survival of our genes. In the modern world the extreme examples of these psychological traits (dying to save relatives) are rarely displayed but they were probably common in our much more violent hunter gatherer past. >I imagine when people first hear about pleasure, they immediately think of >things >like chocolate and sex and jump to an easy conclusion that to seek >pleasure for >pleasure's sake would somehow be immoral. But pleasure comes in many flavors. >Seeing your children grow up into decent people generates pleasure. >Accomplishing >some difficult and noble goal induces pleasure. Helping other people and >wanting >nothing in return causes pleasure. Love is pleasure. Everything we do has >the same >common denominator that drives our behavior. And *what* cause pleasure (motivating us) has been shaped by millions of years of evolution. Look at it from the gene's viewpoint. We get pleasure from increasing our status. In the past males required some minimum status before they were consider as mates by the females. >If survival was not a necessary condition for experiencing pleasure, >people would >not care about survival, but since it is, that's the topic that usually >steals the >headlines. But let's not forget that survival is only a subgoal of the >higher goal >that gives meaning to our lives. True. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 14 07:23:51 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 01:23:51 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070114011913.022d43a8@satx.rr.com> At 01:09 AM 1/14/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: >And *what* cause pleasure (motivating us) has been shaped by millions of >years of evolution. Look at it from the gene's viewpoint. We get pleasure >from increasing our status. In the past males required some minimum status >before they were consider as mates by the females. There are more sources of pleasure than genital excitation and status. Consider the subtle satisfactions enjoyed by those using the "sneaky fucker" strategy (to use the technical term). Subserving, as usual, the propagation of certain genes, and also the phenotypes for which they code, and so on and on. Damien Broderick From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jan 13 20:08:43 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:08:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] comet McNaught !! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070113140435.02ee1ba0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:05 AM 1/13/2007, Amara wrote: >OK, you guys, last chance. It _is_ visible still from the Northern >Hemisphere, but it gets lost in the horizon haze pretty quickly. Thanks for the nudge Amara! It has been storming here so unfortunately looking up only gets drops of rain on my head. :-( (But I still have great memories of Comet Hyahkutake, March 25, 1996 when we were on up in the mountains. Stunning.) 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 Jan 14 11:49:14 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:49:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] comet McNaught (visible in daylight) Message-ID: It's cloudy here again, so I cannot try this, but the comet is apparently _visible in broad daylight_. http://spaceweather.com/ 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 sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 14 12:53:43 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 04:53:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AA27D7.6040203@mac.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > > > Everyone tends to be focused on the rush rush youth market (my mother > or father use an Apple iPhone (see me ROTFL) care about "MySpace" > (whats MySpace?), etc.) There is little emphasis on how to augment > the lifestyles of the elderly to allow them to remain functional and > productive -- perhaps, as Ray puts it, "Living long enough to live > forever". I don't know if my parents will make it. The odds are > against them. But for those of you on the list who have parents in > their 60s, maybe even their late 50s, you should be asking yourselves > whether it is "moral" to develop, market and push on technologies that > *only* benefit those in the 15-30 y.o. age bracket? I would predict > there will come a time, sometime perhaps in the 2015 to 2030 time > frame when books will be written with titles like "How many could we > have saved?" Should all perish together if the early technologies cannot benefit those older than 30 today? What would be moral about so choosing for your children? Indefinitely long life has to start somewhere. Insisting that somehow it "morally" must arrive at once for everyone of all ages would likely insure it never arrives at all. I am 52 and on the cusp of those who may not make it. But I am still happy to invest what I can in longevity research even if it does not end up benefitting me or my generation. - samantha From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 14 14:03:51 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 06:03:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please References: <45AA27D7.6040203@mac.com> Message-ID: Samantha - Please note that the text you quoted was Robert's, not mine. - Jef ________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Samantha Atkins Sent: Sun 1/14/2007 4:53 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] More forwards please Jef Allbright wrote: > > > Everyone tends to be focused on the rush rush youth market (my mother > or father use an Apple iPhone (see me ROTFL) care about "MySpace" > (whats MySpace?), etc.) There is little emphasis on how to augment > the lifestyles of the elderly to allow them to remain functional and > productive -- perhaps, as Ray puts it, "Living long enough to live > forever". I don't know if my parents will make it. The odds are > against them. But for those of you on the list who have parents in > their 60s, maybe even their late 50s, you should be asking yourselves > whether it is "moral" to develop, market and push on technologies that > *only* benefit those in the 15-30 y.o. age bracket? I would predict > there will come a time, sometime perhaps in the 2015 to 2030 time > frame when books will be written with titles like "How many could we > have saved?" Should all perish together if the early technologies cannot benefit those older than 30 today? What would be moral about so choosing for your children? Indefinitely long life has to start somewhere. Insisting that somehow it "morally" must arrive at once for everyone of all ages would likely insure it never arrives at all. I am 52 and on the cusp of those who may not make it. But I am still happy to invest what I can in longevity research even if it does not end up benefitting me or my generation. - samantha _______________________________________________ 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: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4952 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 14 14:41:02 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 06:41:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> <45A9B216.90908@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Thomas Jef Allbright wrote: [...] So all the way from single-celled organisms, through quite complex vertebrates, to organisms that could reflectively model their own actions for improved powers of prediction and control, even to groups of organisms acting as a kind of superorganism that could together work better than any number of individual organisms working separately--all that was happening, every step of the way, was a kind of feedback loop with each organism trying to affect change in its future environment to make it more closely match the values in its internal model. Some of the adaptations had side-effects, some bad, some good in unexpected new ways. The adaptation that provided an organism with reflexive modeling lead to qualitatively new capabilities allowing those organisms to affect their enviroment in powerful (and dangerous) new ways (and also lead to a significant amount of wasted effort (which they called philosophizing) as the model tried to model itself in ways that made sense to its pre-existing set of values. What a simple way of describing the origins of complex behaviors! No goals or supergoals to pull things along in any predetermined direction. Just blind execution of a system that simply tries to minimize the difference between what it senses in its environment and encoded information about what tended to work in the past, tending to adapt in the direction of what works over increasing scope. - Jef I think Mark Tilden' s work supports this and think you deserve a charter membership in the Cult of the Infinite Feedback Loop. Thanks Thomas, for the link. Much of that article is very much in line with what I'm trying to convey. Key idea: The robots walk, effectively and economically, with no explicit high level goal for walking. Now extend that concept to increasingly complex behaviors. As for joining that "cult", I need not worry since I understand that they're forever closed. Now, if it were the Order of Perpetual Growth, I might be interested. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5448 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 14 16:14:05 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:14:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] More forwards please In-Reply-To: <45AA27D7.6040203@mac.com> Message-ID: <200701141614.l0EGEJ3B010844@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > ... you should be asking yourselves > > whether it is "moral" to develop, market and push on technologies that > > *only* benefit those in the 15-30 y.o. age bracket? ... Robert It often seems like *most* marketing and new technologies only benefit those in the 15-30 y.o. bracket. We shouldn't think life extension technologies will be different. Any new life extension technologies henceforth forevermore will surely help the young more than the old, the living more than the dying. Most of us have already committed the deadly sin of being born too early. Our atonements are to eat light, live right and make arrangements for a long nitrogen bath upon our tragically soon demise. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 14 16:16:31 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:16:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Heartland Heartland: If survival was not a necessary condition for experiencing pleasure, people would not care about survival, but since it is, that's the topic that usually steals the headlines. But let's not forget that survival is only a subgoal of the higher goal that gives meaning to our lives. Jef: A problem with thinking in terms of goals and supergoals is that it's teleological. No organism has a viewpoint outside itself from which it can actually formulate original goals for itself. Such thinking leads to the well-known paradoxes of free-will. You believe you choose to seek pleasure, and this requires that you survive, requiring that you eat, and so on down the line. Uhm, where did your starting goal of pleasure-seeking come from? Who chose it? ---- I would never imply that pleasure supergoal is a choice. It never was. As you point out, what we are and what we want has been caused by blind evolutionary mechanism. We've been all hardwired to seek pleasure and have no choice in this matter. I would say that a self reflective system would output a statement of "pleasure" when it senses that the feedback loop is tightening on it's goal. This is consistent with humans expressing pleasure either when their "reality" becomes closer to their expectations or when their expectations become closer to their "reality." It is also consistent with our "pleasure setpoint" moving up as our expectations (previous values) are met and set to a higher level. It's also consistent with our saying that we are "pleased" when something "bad" stops, even when nothing "good" happened. Don't you see that "pleasure" is just a self-refective description of the status of the feedback loop as reported by the system, but lacks any functional or absolute status? It's exactly the same conceptual trap as the concept of qualia. All of which, just to be clear, does not deny the existence of pleasure or subjective experience. If you want to maintain your claim that a goal of "pleasure" motivates all behavior, then your idea fails when extended to organisms that don't have the complex capability of experiencing pleasure. Unless you want to warp the concept of "pleasure" to include what ants and amoebas "experience" when they are not inhibited from carrying ot their normal behaviors. I suppose you could also claim that Tilden's robots feel "displeasure" if you lift their little legs off the ground. Or maybe your claim is that humans have some special undefined quality that sets them apart from lower order animals in terms of goals versus values. My point is that your choice to promote values even at a cost of your survival is still motivated by the higher goal of pleasure. Did you ever consider that our internal values are very much relevant to promoting survival, without requiring an explicit goal of "you must survive!"? I never said that promoting one's values is more important than promoting one's survival. What I said is that fundamentally what we do is try to affect our environment in such a way that we promote our values into the future (values for survival included.). There's a big difference between what we consciously want and what we need. People pursue wealth all their life and when they get rich they find they needed something else instead, like love or fun. IMHO, a similar gap exists between a goal of promoting values and a desire to experience pleasure. The sooner we acknowledge this, the sooner we can satisfy this need as we adjust our decisions and views in light of this observation. This only highlights that I haven't not yet succeeding in conveying what I mean. We're talking past each other. (I realize that pleasure is how evolution tricks us into spreading our genes, but I doubt you can find an argument that could show objectively that seeking pleasure is bad or immoral. How many times have I already stated that morality is fundamentally subjective, but based on "what works"? Sir, have you no shame? ;-) Seeking pleasure is ammoral , but tends to correlate with activity that we would assess as "good". If you or someone else can show why wireheading is wrong without resorting to the obvious "yuck factor" I would like to read it.) Wireheading can be useful to the extent it improves functioning by compensating for performance impairments due to detrimental side-effects of our evolved configuration. For example, physical pain is a useful adaptation in that it forces a prompt (and usually appropriate) response by the organism away from danger. However, a detrimental side-effect of this useful adaption is the possibility of lingering or disabling pain. Similarly for mental and emotional conditions that might be compensated beneficially to improve the functioning of the (human) organism. However, wireheading can be very bad to the extent that it subverts the "pleasure sense" by changing values toward environment, short-circuiting the healthy mode of allowing the agent to change environment toward values. Such short-cicuiting of the growth process is morally neutral with regard to the individual, but detrimental and morally wrong from the point of view of others in the community. If we're going to attempt to continue this discussion, I think it would be very effective if we tried reversing roles. If agreeable, you can reply by clearly summarizing my position (my point of view) as coherently as possible, then state why anyone might have a problem with it. I'll do the same for your position. This should greatly minimize the tendency to talk past one another. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 8544 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Jan 14 16:16:30 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:16:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070114011913.022d43a8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070114110829.03ff1c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:23 AM 1/14/2007 -0600, you wrote: >At 01:09 AM 1/14/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > >And *what* cause pleasure (motivating us) has been shaped by millions of > >years of evolution. Look at it from the gene's viewpoint. We get pleasure > >from increasing our status. In the past males required some minimum status > >before they were consider as mates by the females. > >There are more sources of pleasure than genital excitation and >status. That was just an example. Should have made that clearer. Agree. Can you account for the pleasure people get from BDSM sex? I think it is a side effect of capture-bonding. >Consider the subtle satisfactions enjoyed by those using the >"sneaky fucker" strategy (to use the technical term). Subserving, as >usual, the propagation of certain genes, and also the phenotypes for >which they code, and so on and on. Yeah. Tons of strategies, some of them, like rape, really unpleasant. The other thing I didn't mention is that we are not far from the end of human genes being in the evolution game. But everybody here knows that. Keith From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 17:39:30 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:39:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On the subjective theory of probability, two rational agents with the same background knowledge may hold different judgemental probabilities on the same outcome, at least in certain situations. Though I don't necessarily endorse this view, I think I can defend it. Jef wants to know for example how two rational machine intelligences might offer different outputs given the same inputs. Drawing on the cube conundrum, imagine this scenario: Unbeknownst to each other, two rational agents (machine intelligences, AI's, whatever) are each given a box containing a cube. The cubes in the two boxes are identical. The agents know only that their side-lengths are between 3 and 5 centimeters, their surface areas are between 54 and 150 cm^2, and their volumes are between 27 and 125 cm^3. Note there is nothing challenging about these ranges; lots of real cubes could meet these constraints. For some practical unspecified reason, each agent must use the information given to make a best-guess of the probable dimensions of the actual cube in his respective box. (As often happens in the real world, our agents are being forced to make decisions under conditions of high uncertainty.) They make their decisions, then come together to compare their conclusions and their reasoning. Is it possible that our agents will have reached different conclusions? I think so. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't. Our agents were forced to decide arbitrarily between 'side-length', 'surface area' and 'volume' as the parameter to use for estimating the over-all dimensions of the cube. Each of these three methods leads to a different but perfectly rational judgemental probability. As we've seen, judgements based on all three parameters are paradoxical. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 14 18:21:02 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:21:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Gordon - There's nothing amazing or paradoxical here. Do you find it equally perplexing when someone asks the average of some set of numbers, and another person responds mean, median, arithmetic or geometric average? Also, I wasn't "wondering" any such thing as you describe below. Rather, I was challenging you to be more coherent. - Jef ________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of gts Sent: Sun 1/14/2007 9:39 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] what is probability? On the subjective theory of probability, two rational agents with the same background knowledge may hold different judgemental probabilities on the same outcome, at least in certain situations. Though I don't necessarily endorse this view, I think I can defend it. Jef wants to know for example how two rational machine intelligences might offer different outputs given the same inputs. Drawing on the cube conundrum, imagine this scenario: Unbeknownst to each other, two rational agents (machine intelligences, AI's, whatever) are each given a box containing a cube. The cubes in the two boxes are identical. The agents know only that their side-lengths are between 3 and 5 centimeters, their surface areas are between 54 and 150 cm^2, and their volumes are between 27 and 125 cm^3. Note there is nothing challenging about these ranges; lots of real cubes could meet these constraints. For some practical unspecified reason, each agent must use the information given to make a best-guess of the probable dimensions of the actual cube in his respective box. (As often happens in the real world, our agents are being forced to make decisions under conditions of high uncertainty.) They make their decisions, then come together to compare their conclusions and their reasoning. Is it possible that our agents will have reached different conclusions? I think so. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't. Our agents were forced to decide arbitrarily between 'side-length', 'surface area' and 'volume' as the parameter to use for estimating the over-all dimensions of the cube. Each of these three methods leads to a different but perfectly rational judgemental probability. As we've seen, judgements based on all three parameters are paradoxical. -gts _______________________________________________ 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: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5544 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Jan 14 18:39:29 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:39:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in?. References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <011101c7380b$5b00e710$43064e0c@MyComputer> Robert Bradbury Wrote: > Would I want to wake up in an environment where I am clearly obsolete If you could point to someone smarter that you would that make life no longer worth living? Even with enhancements you'll never be the smartest kid on the block, but you could be far smarter than any human alive today. > and where the material in my body (or the computer hosting my mind) might > clearly be dedicated to purposes more useful than that which I am likely > to manifest? Then why would Mr. Jupiter Brain bother to reanimate you in the first place. Mr. Jupiter must have some goodwill toward you (even if it's only nostalgic value) or you'd still be taking a dirt nap. > Pointless would be the question one confronts. If Mr. Jupiter thinks the little activities that amuse me are pointless then that's just tough, Mr. Galaxy Brain probably thinks the same of him. My life is only pointless if I think it's pointless, Mr. Jupiter's opinion of me is irrelevant. > We tolerate the Amish currently because we are not up against the limits. Yes, there may be cosmological reasons that limit what intelligence can accomplish, but we are a very long way from bumping into those limits. I once saw a Woody Allen movie where a little boy must visit a child physiologist because he was in a deep depression ever since he read that the proton might be unstable and the entire universe might evaporate in a few hundred trillion years. I still think that's funny. John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 18:51:32 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:51:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:21:02 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > If you think they can provide different outputs, then your thinking > is based on an assumption that (1) "rational" is different for > different agents, or (2) "input" is different for different > agents. In either case, there's an assumption of something special > (something undefined) going on in the subjective processing of the agent, In the scenario I just described, I made none of the assumptions you list above and yet the two rational agents arrived at different judgemental probabilities. -gts From scerir at libero.it Sun Jan 14 19:08:39 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:08:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] R: what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701141933.l0EJX7ar024386@andromeda.ziaspace.com> gts: On the subjective theory of probability, two rational agents with the same background knowledge may hold different judgemental probabilities on the same outcome, at least in certain situations. # Suppose 2 parties describe a system by 2 (possibly) different 'pictures'. These 2 'pictures' represent the beliefs of the parties about the system. Can we fix the conditions for determining whether the 2 'pictures' are compatible? (I suppose there is a huge literature about that, but I'm not sure, and I think compatibility is an important concept here). It is possible to distinguish two kinds of procedures for assessing compatibility. The first based on the compatibility of the prior beliefs on which the 2 'pictures' are based. The second based on the compatibility of predictive probabilities they define. Does it make any sense? s. From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 14 20:19:33 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:19:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of gts > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:21:02 -0500, Jef Allbright > wrote: >> If you think they can provide different outputs, then your thinking >> is based on an assumption that (1) "rational" is different for >> different agents, or (2) "input" is different for different >> agents. In either case, there's an assumption of something special >> (something undefined) going on in the subjective processing of the agent, > In the scenario I just described, I made none of the assumptions you list > above and yet the two rational agents arrived at different judgemental > probabilities. When one identically rational agent chooses to use linear edge length, while the other agent chooses to use quadratic surface area, do you really think that different choice is made in the absence of different input information? I'll ask you again, are you trying to argue, similar to the Qualia Debate, your belief that there is something significant but special that would cause two identical agents, in identical circumstances, to act differently? - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 14 21:02:24 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:02:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45AA9A60.1010702@mac.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > > > > When one identically rational agent chooses to use linear edge length, > while the other agent chooses to use quadratic surface area, do you > really think that different choice is made in the absence of different > input information? > Methinks the problem is that there is no such thing as "two identically rational agents" so identical that they have substantially identical values, relevant knowledge, relevant perceptions, mental processes, tools and so on. Why bother with multiple different entities at all if only precise rationality is needed and can be precisely defined and the "right way" and "right views" is totally and completely objectively determinable in all things? Is it not amusing that we very sloppy meat brains of very limited rigorous rationality or reasoning continue to circle around the question of whether two really rational reasoners can disagree? Is it a rational use of our limited time and abilities to continue thus? - s From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 14 22:09:59 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:09:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> <45AA9A60.1010702@mac.com> Message-ID: From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Samantha Atkins Jef Allbright wrote: > > > > When one identically rational agent chooses to use linear edge length, > while the other agent chooses to use quadratic surface area, do you > really think that different choice is made in the absence of different > input information? > Methinks the problem is that there is no such thing as "two identically rational agents" so identical that they have substantially identical values, relevant knowledge, relevant perceptions, mental processes, tools and so on. Why bother with multiple different entities at all if only precise rationality is needed and can be precisely defined and the "right way" and "right views" is totally and completely objectively determinable in all things? Is it not amusing that we very sloppy meat brains of very limited rigorous rationality or reasoning continue to circle around the question of whether two really rational reasoners can disagree? Is it a rational use of our limited time and abilities to continue thus? Samantha - I couldn't care less about these hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios around which swirl such unproductive discussion and debate. What does gravely concern me is that that a large majority of the decision-makers in our population are uncomfortable and unskilled at rational thought! It's scary in the face of rapidly escalating technological empowerment that so many people aren't equipped to effectively exercise their volition in an increasingly complex environment. It's not that we should be expected to have the "right" answers, but we do a pitifully poor job of recognizing the problems and asking the questions. And I won't even get into how many people think rationality itself is evil. Did you really think I give a fuck about angels dancing on pins?! - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5556 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 22:36:00 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:36:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:19:33 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > When one identically rational agent chooses to use linear edge length, > while the other agent chooses to use quadratic surface area, do you > really think that different choice is made in the absence of different > input information? No. In order to avoid paradox, our rational agents were forced to make an arbitrary choice from among three equally valid alternatives. Each faced the same decision and had the same background information. Nothing there about different inputs. > I'll ask you again, are you trying to argue, similar to the Qualia... No. -gts From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 22:36:38 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 22:36:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> <45AA9A60.1010702@mac.com> Message-ID: On 1/14/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > What does gravely concern me is that that a large majority of the decision-makers in > our population are uncomfortable and unskilled at rational thought! > > It's scary in the face of rapidly escalating technological empowerment that so many > people aren't equipped to effectively exercise their volition in an increasingly complex > environment. It's not that we should be expected to have the "right" answers, but we > do a pitifully poor job of recognizing the problems and asking the questions. And I > won't even get into how many people think rationality itself is evil. > The future won't be planned or controlled. It will just happen. It will be shaped by forces beyond our control. Like the East / West jihad. Like the giant corporations deciding where the biggest profit lies. Like the non-rational public using their spending power to decide where tech development should go. Like natural resources running dry. e.g. water, oil, metals, etc. Like floods, droughts, plagues..... Like Western birth rate falling, Third World birth rate increasing. Rationality has almost nothing to do with human development. Emotion is what drives humans. BillK From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 22:40:38 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:40:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry, I wrote... > No. In order to avoid paradox, our rational agents were forced to make > an arbitrary choice... But I meant, "Yes. In order to avoid paradox, our agents were forced to make an arbitrary choice.." etc. (Yes we have no bananas today.) -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 14 22:52:00 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:52:00 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> <45AA9A60.1010702@mac.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070114164940.02264738@satx.rr.com> At 10:36 PM 1/14/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: >Third World birth rate increasing. The usual "demographic transition" expectation is: not for long. Assuming that health benefits etc spread. Do you have reason to question this? [leaving the subject line intact for the moment, but chafing] Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 23:59:49 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:59:49 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070114164940.02264738@satx.rr.com> References: <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> <45AA9A60.1010702@mac.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070114164940.02264738@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/14/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:36 PM 1/14/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: > > > >Third World birth rate increasing. > > The usual "demographic transition" expectation is: not for long. > Assuming that health benefits etc spread. Do you have reason to question this? > Everything changes. Even the changes themselves. :) The first world birth rate declined as the death rate also declined. It is expected that the third world will follow the same path. But current estimates do not predict the third world birth rate becoming similar to the first world until around 2080. By then the future will have arrived. (There is also the problem of emigration from the third world and the high birth rate of non-western families already within the first world). BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 15 00:05:07 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:05:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 2nd precursor gene for Alzheimer's Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070114180254.021fad40@satx.rr.com> Gene for Alzheimer's discovered Monday, 15 January 2007 Agen?e France-Presse Gene for Alzheimer's discovered A second gene responsible for late-onset Alzheimer's diesease, a condition affecting millions worldwide, has been discovered by an international team of researchers. CHICAGO: A second gene responsible for the most common form of Alzheimer's disease has been identified by U.S. and Canadian researchers. "The importance of the finding is that it opens new pathways to explore the cause of the disease, as well as potential targets for treatment," said Richard Mayeux of Columbia University's Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Ageing Brain, and one of the authors of the study. In genetic studies involving some 6,000 volunteers, the researchers discovered that variants of the gene SORL1 were more common in people with late-onset Alzheimer's than in healthy people of the same age. Additionally, the Alzheimer's sufferers had less than 50 per cent as much of the protein produced by SORL1 in their blood compared with the healthy group. In healthy people, SORL1, which is a 'traffic cop' regulating the flow of amyloid precursor protein (APP) inside nerve cells in the brain, sends APP to a part of the cell where it is recycled. But in people with the gene variants, the protein produced by the SOR1 gene appears to drive APP to another region of the cell where it accumulates and is degraded into amyloid plaques. Plaques, according to the researchers, are the abnormal sticky proteins that gum up the brain of Alzheimer's victims. "SORL1 is another critical piece of the Alzheimer's disease puzzle," said Mayeux. In 1993, U.S. scientists identified the first genetic marker for late-onset Alzheimer's and two years later Canadian researchers linked two genes to the aggressive early-onset form of the disease. But a decade on, effective treatments for the progressive brain disease are still lacking, and the only definitive way to diagnose the illness is by autopsy. Pharmacuetical companies are scrambling to develop drugs, many of them targeting the beta-amyloid protein fragments that are considered a prime suspect in the nerve cell death that is a feature of the disease, according to the Alzheimer's Association in Chicago, Illinois. Some of those drugs are in clinical trials and should be on the market in five to 10 years, but it's a race against the clock as the number of Alzheimer's cases is predicted to surge with the greying of the population. In the United States alone, some 4.5 million people have been afflicted with the memory-sapping illness, and the prevalence is expected to double in the next 25 years. The authors of this study, published today in the British journal Nature Genetics, said they hoped that this discovery would speed the search for drug therapies, and once they are in place, help identify people at risk for the disease. "Right now, there are questions about the value of screening people for the disease, because we can't do much about it. All that changes if there are effective therapies that can prevent brain damage occurring," said co-author Peter St. George-Hyslop, of the Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases at the University of Toronto in Canada. From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Jan 14 22:39:23 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:39:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Eyes ... interesting article In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070113122249.03dbcf90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070114173556.03ff1968@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:44 PM 1/13/2007 -0800, you wrote: >From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of Keith Henson >For Human Eyes Only >By MICHAEL TOMASELLO >Trying to explain why the whites of human eyes are larger >than those of other primates leads to one of the deepest >and most controversial topics in the modern study of human >evolution: the evolution of cooperation. >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/opinion/13tomasello.html?th&emc=th > >Interesting article, but throughout I kept wondering how such an >adaptation could have evolved, being more likely to be exploited by >competitors than cooperators among humans. Perhaps because we can so >easily deceive with those same eyes? In the stone age most of the time those close enough for us to see whites of our eyes were relatives. That's one of the key things to remember during the long period of human evolution as hunter gatherers. However, the same is true of chimp bands. So why didn't they develop eyes like we have? No idea. Keith From velvethum at hotmail.com Mon Jan 15 01:20:36 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:20:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland: I would never imply that pleasure supergoal is a choice. It never was. As you point out, what we are and what we want has been caused by blind evolutionary mechanism. We've been all hardwired to seek pleasure and have no choice in this matter. Jef: I would say that a self reflective system would output a statement of "pleasure" when it senses that the feedback loop is tightening on it's goal. This is consistent with humans expressing pleasure either when their "reality" becomes closer to their expectations or when their expectations become closer to their "reality." It is also consistent with our "pleasure setpoint" moving up as our expectations (previous values) are met and set to a higher level. It's also consistent with our saying that we are "pleased" when something "bad" stops, even when nothing "good" happened. Don't you see that "pleasure" is just a self-refective description of the status of the feedback loop as reported by the system, but lacks any functional or absolute status? It's exactly the same conceptual trap as the concept of qualia. All of which, just to be clear, does not deny the existence of pleasure or subjective experience. ---- Jef, it sounds like you're a card-carrying functionalist. :-) Jef: If you want to maintain your claim that a goal of "pleasure" motivates all behavior, then your idea fails when extended to organisms that don't have the complex capability of experiencing pleasure. Unless you want to warp the concept of "pleasure" to include what ants and amoebas "experience" when they are not inhibited from carrying ot their normal behaviors. I suppose you could also claim that Tilden's robots feel "displeasure" if you lift their little legs off the ground. Or maybe your claim is that humans have some special undefined quality that sets them apart from lower order animals in terms of goals versus values. ---- It's important to understand that pleasure is *one of many* motivating forces that drives different agents of different complexity. Sometimes it's just electricity and code. I think it would be wrong to go from "humans do the things they do only if they expect to be paid in pleasure at the end of the task" to "machines that do something must therefore be driven by and capable of experiencing pleasure." I don't see a logical connection there. Pleasure doesn't have to extend to all agents, as you suggest, just like a capacity for abstract thought doesn't have to extend below complexity of a human mind. Heartland: My point is that your choice to promote values even at a cost of your survival is still motivated by the higher goal of pleasure. Jef: Did you ever consider that our internal values are very much relevant to promoting survival, without requiring an explicit goal of "you must survive!"? ---- Yes, and I find it inconsistent while trying to point this out to you. Promotion of survival without the explicit goal of trying to stay alive makes no sense. Humans are not perfectly rational. Jef: I never said that promoting one's values is more important than promoting one's survival. ---- I'm sorry Jef, but that is exactly what you've been saying (just look at your previous sentence). If you hadn't been saying that I wouldn't have been compelled to reply to your posts. I'm sure you don't think you are saying that, but you do. (read below) Jef: What I said is that fundamentally what we do is try to affect our environment in such a way that we promote our values into the future (values for survival included.). ---- And some values are more important than trying to stay alive, right? So, it seems to you that this stipulation of "[promoting survival] without requiring an explicit goal of 'you must survive!' makes all this right and logically consistent. Let's then focus on this. How can you claim that promoting survival is more important than promoting (survival-unrelated) values and still insist that explicit goal of staying alive is less important than promoting values? In other words, how can trying to survive be more important than staying alive? Staying alive *is the whole point* of trying to survive. It's as if someone campaigned hard for candidate X while not caring about whether or not X wins the office. Jef: Seeking pleasure is ammoral , but tends to correlate with activity that we would assess as "good". ---- I would say that's a very strong correlation. :-) Perhaps strong enough to define "good" as "pleasure?" Heartland: If you or someone else can show why wireheading is wrong without resorting to the obvious "yuck factor" I would like to read it.) Jef: Wireheading can be useful to the extent it improves functioning by compensating for performance impairments due to detrimental side-effects of our evolved configuration. For example, physical pain is a useful adaptation in that it forces a prompt (and usually appropriate) response by the organism away from danger. However, a detrimental side-effect of this useful adaption is the possibility of lingering or disabling pain. Similarly for mental and emotional conditions that might be compensated beneficially to improve the functioning of the (human) organism. ---- Yes. Jef: However, wireheading can be very bad to the extent that it subverts the "pleasure sense" by changing values toward environment, short-circuiting the healthy mode of allowing the agent to change environment toward values. Such short-cicuiting of the growth process is morally neutral with regard to the individual, but detrimental and morally wrong from the point of view of others in the community. ---- On the face of it, this is a strong argument, but consider this. Pleasure is not only chocolate and sex (as I cautioned against this knee-jerk thought before) but also seeing a healthy environment and happy community. If wireheading has a natural tendency to change values toward environment, that powerful force will be automatically balanced by an opposing force that says, "it would be wrong to change values as this change could negatively affect my environment which would certainly diminish my potential for experiencing pleasure in the future." This simple and "cold" benefit vs. cost analysis would keep a rational agent on the path of "pleasure growth" resulting in equal benefits to the individual *and* society. Obviously, this "agent" doesn't necessarily refer to a present-day human. This could only work for rational agents. The point is that it's not that wireheading itself is broken, but that humans still are. Jef: If we're going to attempt to continue this discussion, I think it would be very effective if we tried reversing roles. If agreeable, you can reply by clearly summarizing my position (my point of view) as coherently as possible, then state why anyone might have a problem with it. I'll do the same for your position. This should greatly minimize the tendency to talk past one another. ---- Ah, it's that trap again. Fool me once... . :-) S. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 00:56:25 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:56:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <45AA9A60.1010702@mac.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> <45AA9A60.1010702@mac.com> Message-ID: > Methinks the problem is that there is no such thing as "two identically > rational agents" That is almost certainly true for now and may remain true into the indefinite future, but here we are discussing theories and principles. In the argument I presented, the two rational agents are in principle absolutely identical with respect to their rationality and background knowledge/inputs, including in this important respect: they each have an identical ability to make totally arbitrary decisions between equally rational alternatives. In machine terms this would mean they each have the ability to output a random number (real or pseudo-random, it makes no difference here) to facilitate their arbitrary decisions. Is it rational for the agents to make arbitrary decisions between rational alternatives? I think so. The alternative leads to paradox. But a consequence is that rational agents with the same background knowledge may be permitted to have different judgemental probabilities on the same outcome, as in the subjective theory of probability. (The only way to escape this conclusion short of abandoning the principle of indifference even as a heuristic tool, would be, at least that I can see, to prove somehow that one of the three alternative physical parameters are preferable to the other two for setting a prior probability on the dimensions of the unseen cube.) -gts From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Jan 15 01:28:24 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:28:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130910v66c76691h69b21b99d7659f20@mail.gmail.com> <45AA9A60.1010702@mac.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070114201236.03afafb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:36 PM 1/14/2007 +0000, Billk wrote: >The future won't be planned or controlled. It will just happen. You might be right, though I think it is a bit pessimistic. After all 150 years ago epidemic disease was considered to be beyond control. >It will be shaped by forces beyond our control. >Like the East / West jihad. When push comes to shove, high tech is going to carry the day. For example the Russians have the means to clear at least as third of the populations on their southern border. I rather think that if the Islamic world developed indigenous high tech, the jihad business would fade out. >Like the giant corporations deciding where the biggest profit lies. True. And they could decide that 5th generation fission or SPS power would make more money than oil. >Like the non-rational public using their spending power to decide where >tech development should go. Technology is so interconnected that it hardly matters. >Like natural resources running dry. e.g. water, oil, metals, etc. That's just engineering. Enough energy and you can solve these problems. >Like floods, droughts, plagues..... All problems that can be mitigated by science and engineering. >Like Western birth rate falling, Third World birth rate increasing. > >Rationality has almost nothing to do with human development. I really don't think you can make this case. We have a very different life style than hunter gatherers. How did we get it? >Emotion is what drives humans. That's true. And sometimes it drives them to make useful discoveries and win the Nobel prize. Keith From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 01:40:13 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:40:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> On 1/14/07, gts wrote: > > And even assuming his argument is correct for the random chord paradox, > how is it in any way translatable to the other paradoxes? It's not. If the Bertrand paradox is fundamentally unsolvable then it seems to me > the principle of indifference is toast as a logical principle The principle of indifference was never valid as a logical principle. If I know a coin is unbiased, I'm justified in claiming the probability of heads on the next toss is 0.5. If all I know is that A or B will happen, and nothing else, I am _not_ justified in claiming the probability of A is 0.5. It might be something completely different. and if so > then it seems two rational agents would be free in certain cases to use > different bayesian priors. Of course. Logic is about deriving conclusions from axioms; it doesn't tell you anything about what axioms you should have. I would guess that thought is probably anathema to AI researchers; we want > to know all robots of a kind will think and act identically under > identical circumstances, yes? Or do we? Real humans seem not to. > All robots that are identically programmed will think and act under identical circumstances. If they're not identically programmed they won't, same as humans don't. What of it? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 02:25:06 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:25:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:40:13 -0500, Russell Wallace wrote: >> And even assuming his argument is correct for the random chord paradox, >> how is it in any way translatable to the other paradoxes? > > It's not. Agreed. My question was rhetorical. > The principle of indifference was never valid as a logical principle. Many people believe the principle of indifference is and always has been a valid logical principle, though at the moment I don't include myself among them. > If all I know is that A or B will happen, and > nothing else, I am _not_ justified in claiming the probability of A is > 0.5. It might be something completely different. Right, it might be something completely different, and there is really no reason whatsoever to think it is 0.5. But one problem I see is this: If we are to use Bayesian methods (very popular these days, especially here among extropians) then we must find some way to set our prior probabilities for use in Bayes' Theorem. In some problem situations the principle of indifference looks very attractive, for example in the situation you describe above. -gts From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 02:36:50 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:36:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> On 1/15/07, gts wrote: > > If we are to use Bayesian methods (very popular these days, especially > here among extropians) then we must find some way to set our prior > probabilities for use in Bayes' Theorem. In some problem situations the > principle of indifference looks very attractive, for example in the > situation you describe above. > I'm inclined to think that issue would be best discussed in the context of a practical example - do you have one to hand? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 04:29:58 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:59:58 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Eyes ... interesting article In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070114173556.03ff1968@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070113122249.03dbcf90@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070114173556.03ff1968@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0701142029h4c48161cg67609563bddc260d@mail.gmail.com> On 15/01/07, Keith Henson wrote: > In the stone age most of the time those close enough for us to see whites > of our eyes were relatives. > > That's one of the key things to remember during the long period of human > evolution as hunter gatherers. > > However, the same is true of chimp bands. > > So why didn't they develop eyes like we have? > Perhaps for the same reasons that they didn't develop our level of general intelligence, language, etc. Maybe it's all somehow a package - a group of reinforcing traits that are only really useful all together (co-evolving incrementally?), and require some particular environmental stimulus to trigger off (a stimulus which presumably chimps and pygmy chimps didn't share with us). Emlyn From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Jan 15 06:05:58 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:05:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox Message-ID: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> I'm posting this latest entry to my blog, at http://pj-manney.blogspot.com/ because I'm curious what the extropes think about this. While it's written as humorous (at least to me) I'm actually serious about the psychological implications of this idea. And what it means about selling H+ ideas as well. Feel free to respond here or on my blog. PJ ************************************** I had an epiphany the other night. I was lying in bed, wondering why the most religiously devout parts of the US (call them Red States, call them Bible Belt, call them Heartland, it matters not) are statistically the places with the highest rates of divorce, domestic violence, murder, child endangerment, kidnapping, serial killers, corporate malfeasance, you name it. They got it. When I worked in the movie-of-the-week (MOW) business oh-so-briefly in the early ?90?s (because I frankly did not have the stomach for ambulance-chasing the latest woman-in-jeopardy story), we covered the South like a rug, but especially two states that were the most notorious for the most egregious acts against fellow humans: Texas and Florida. Therefore, every self-respecting MOW producer kept track of the local newspapers out of Texas and Florida, especially Northern Florida. They were the homes of Ted Bundy, Aileen Wuornos and Gerard John Schaefer (aka the Killer Cop/the Florida Sex Beast). The Texas Cheerleader Murdering Mom and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And later, Enron and world-class vote stealing. (And let?s not forget our present administration and the Bush family?s Texas and Florida dynasties. But I digress?) What puzzled me was that these same areas of the country were the most Bible thumping, most devout, most God-fearing parts of the country as well. How could so many people who believed that God would strike them dead if they did wrong, do wrong? Then I thought about all my recent reading in neuroscience and psychology for my novel and my own background in marketing. One of the concepts that is often discussed in both psychology and marketing and has now been confirmed with fMRI technology in brain scans, is how a negated statement is often ignored and instead embraced as its positive. For instance, if there was a picture of you in the newspaper, accompanied by the headline, ?Terrorist Suspect found Not Guilty,? the average person would see you and remember, ?Terrorist? Guilty.? The ?Not? disappears. Even if intellectually they remembered that you were found not guilty, they would still file you in their brains as a terrorist and reference you as such thereafter. Especially if the previous headlines had accused you of terrorism, because like your mother always said, first impressions last. We use the principle in child rearing all the time. You don?t tell a child ?Don?t run across the street!? because you know they?re only hearing ?Run Across the Street!? Instead, you say ?Stay with Me!? or ?Hold My Hand!? The Republicans are masters at this. They make positive statements all the time, like ?We found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? that force their critics to tell the truth and negate them, replying, ?There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.? But all the public remembers is the war we?re fighting is about Weapons of Mass Destruction. They don?t hear the ?No? in the negated, but truthful statement. To the public, the Democrats are simply repeating what the Republicans have been saying the entire time. And then it hit me. The Ten Commandments is a To-Do-List. Whoever wrote Exodus clearly didn?t have a degree in Cognitive Psychology. And if God really carved those tablets from the rocks of Mount Sinai, then he needs to take Psych 101. Or Marketing 101. He?s just not getting his message across. Because the devout have been paying, and paying, and paying for those little negated statements ever since. They don?t hear, ?Thou shalt not kill.? They hear, ?Thou shalt? kill.? They don?t hear, ?Thou shalt not steal.? They hear, ?Thou shalt? steal.? They don?t hear, ?Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor?s wife.? Instead, they hadn?t even thought about coveting their neighbor?s wife, but then they think about it for the first time because the Ten Commandments tell them so and they take a good, long look at her and think, ?Hey, my neighbor?s wife is HOT!? And before they know it, they?ve broken TWO commandments -- coveting and adultery. Think about it. If I?m wrong, do you have a better explanation for what shall hitherto be known as The Bible Belt Paradox? From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 08:27:42 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:27:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <470a3c520701150027x67f3fa37qf719a1169a34fcec@mail.gmail.com> Interesting thoughts Patricia, and I agree with the marketing insight. But I think I have a much simpler explanation for The Bible Belt Paradox. The simpler explanation being that self-righteousness and intolerance correlate strongly with aggression and sociopathic behaviour: both express the primitive brain circuits against the more developed ones. G. On 1/15/07, pjmanney wrote: > I'm posting this latest entry to my blog, at > http://pj-manney.blogspot.com/ > because I'm curious what the extropes think about this. While it's written as humorous (at least to me) I'm actually serious about the psychological implications of this idea. And what it means about selling H+ ideas as well. > > Feel free to respond here or on my blog. > > PJ > > ************************************** > > I had an epiphany the other night. > > I was lying in bed, wondering why the most religiously devout parts of the US (call them Red States, call them Bible Belt, call them Heartland, it matters not) are statistically the places with the highest rates of divorce, domestic violence, murder, child endangerment, kidnapping, serial killers, corporate malfeasance, you name it. They got it. When I worked in the movie-of-the-week (MOW) business oh-so-briefly in the early '90's (because I frankly did not have the stomach for ambulance-chasing the latest woman-in-jeopardy story), we covered the South like a rug, but especially two states that were the most notorious for the most egregious acts against fellow humans: Texas and Florida. Therefore, every self-respecting MOW producer kept track of the local newspapers out of Texas and Florida, especially Northern Florida. They were the homes of Ted Bundy, Aileen Wuornos and Gerard John Schaefer (aka the Killer Cop/the Florida Sex Beast). The Texas Cheerleader Murdering Mom and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And later, Enron and world-class vote stealing. (And let's not forget our present administration and the Bush family's Texas and Florida dynasties. But I digress?) > > What puzzled me was that these same areas of the country were the most Bible thumping, most devout, most God-fearing parts of the country as well. How could so many people who believed that God would strike them dead if they did wrong, do wrong? > > Then I thought about all my recent reading in neuroscience and psychology for my novel and my own background in marketing. One of the concepts that is often discussed in both psychology and marketing and has now been confirmed with fMRI technology in brain scans, is how a negated statement is often ignored and instead embraced as its positive. For instance, if there was a picture of you in the newspaper, accompanied by the headline, "Terrorist Suspect found Not Guilty," the average person would see you and remember, "Terrorist? Guilty." The "Not" disappears. Even if intellectually they remembered that you were found not guilty, they would still file you in their brains as a terrorist and reference you as such thereafter. Especially if the previous headlines had accused you of terrorism, because like your mother always said, first impressions last. > > We use the principle in child rearing all the time. You don't tell a child "Don't run across the street!" because you know they're only hearing "Run Across the Street!" Instead, you say "Stay with Me!" or "Hold My Hand!" > > The Republicans are masters at this. They make positive statements all the time, like "We found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" that force their critics to tell the truth and negate them, replying, "There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq." But all the public remembers is the war we're fighting is about Weapons of Mass Destruction. They don't hear the 'No' in the negated, but truthful statement. To the public, the Democrats are simply repeating what the Republicans have been saying the entire time. > > And then it hit me. The Ten Commandments is a To-Do-List. > > Whoever wrote Exodus clearly didn't have a degree in Cognitive Psychology. And if God really carved those tablets from the rocks of Mount Sinai, then he needs to take Psych 101. Or Marketing 101. He's just not getting his message across. > > Because the devout have been paying, and paying, and paying for those little negated statements ever since. > > They don't hear, "Thou shalt not kill." They hear, "Thou shalt? kill." They don't hear, "Thou shalt not steal." They hear, "Thou shalt? steal." They don't hear, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Instead, they hadn't even thought about coveting their neighbor's wife, but then they think about it for the first time because the Ten Commandments tell them so and they take a good, long look at her and think, "Hey, my neighbor's wife is HOT!" And before they know it, they've broken TWO commandments -- coveting and adultery. > > Think about it. > > If I'm wrong, do you have a better explanation for what shall hitherto be known as The Bible Belt Paradox? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 08:37:43 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:37:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Eyes ... interesting article In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0701142029h4c48161cg67609563bddc260d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <412877.42899.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > On 15/01/07, Keith Henson > wrote: > > In the stone age most of the time those close > enough for us to see whites > > of our eyes were relatives. > > > > That's one of the key things to remember during > the long period of human > > evolution as hunter gatherers. > > > > However, the same is true of chimp bands. > > > > So why didn't they develop eyes like we have? > > > > Perhaps for the same reasons that they didn't > develop our level of > general intelligence, language, etc. Maybe it's all > somehow a package > - a group of reinforcing traits that are only really > useful all > together (co-evolving incrementally?), and require > some particular > environmental stimulus to trigger off (a stimulus > which presumably > chimps and pygmy chimps didn't share with us). I think it is related to the hidden ovulation in human females. Hidden ovulation is speculated by Jared Diamond amongst others to be involved in the evolution of cooperation. Because human females do not display swollen genitals when they are ovulating like chimps and other primates, the paternity of a child born of a female with multiple sex partners has been historically in doubt. As such the female and her offspring are generally well treated by all males that may have had sex with her, since evolution would favor them erring on the side of caution. The eyes are heavily involved in flirting and early human courtship with sidelong glances and such easily disguised by the direction the head was turned. Perhaps then the whites of the eyes allowed for sneaky trysts that along with uncertain paternity allowed for the development of cooperation amongst early humans. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." -Abraham Lincoln ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 09:14:20 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:14:20 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the future under control? Message-ID: On 1/15/07, Keith Henson wrote: > At 10:36 PM 1/14/2007 +0000, Billk wrote: > >The future won't be planned or controlled. It will just happen. > > You might be right, though I think it is a bit pessimistic. After all 150 > years ago epidemic disease was considered to be beyond control. > The Swedish are the happiest people in the world because they are the most pessimistic. If anything nice happens they are really, really pleased. :) > >It will be shaped by forces beyond our control. > >Like the East / West jihad. > > When push comes to shove, high tech is going to carry the day. For example > the Russians have the means to clear at least as third of the populations > on their southern border. I rather think that if the Islamic world > developed indigenous high tech, the jihad business would fade out. The West will never nuke their borders to make a dead zone between the first and third worlds. There are far too many relatives of third world people already in the first world and starting to command voting power. > > >Like the giant corporations deciding where the biggest profit lies. > > True. And they could decide that 5th generation fission or SPS power would > make more money than oil. > True, they might. Talking about the future is about trying to assess probabilities. Anything *might* happen. Some paths are more likely than others. More troops are going to Iraq (or nearby). New Orleans is still a disaster zone. The nuclear doomsday clock is being advanced. > >Like the non-rational public using their spending power to decide where > >tech development should go. > > Technology is so interconnected that it hardly matters. Like our future is a different colour of iPod?? :) > > >Like natural resources running dry. e.g. water, oil, metals, etc. > > That's just engineering. Enough energy and you can solve these problems. > Everything is just engineering. If, as a whole, the first world has the will to do it. That's the problem. Set up a committee to discuss it. > >Like floods, droughts, plagues..... > > All problems that can be mitigated by science and engineering. > > >Like Western birth rate falling, Third World birth rate increasing. > > > >Rationality has almost nothing to do with human development. > > I really don't think you can make this case. We have a very different life > style than hunter gatherers. How did we get it? > > >Emotion is what drives humans. > > That's true. And sometimes it drives them to make useful discoveries and > win the Nobel prize. > Oh we have some clever individuals in our species, no doubt about it. But scientists and teachers are presently among the lowest rewarded in our society. That's why our youth want to be sportsmen or pop singers. Nanotech discoveries will probably be used to make money and to make weapons. It is already happening. Humans don't choose a specific future. Millions of people make small choices. Whatever path is seen as necessary (like war) will be chosen. If it means (as it does) that other paths are closed off in our future, then by default, that's what will happen. BillK From neptune at superlink.net Mon Jan 15 10:32:50 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 05:32:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the future under control? References: Message-ID: <00b901c73890$8262af20$a7893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, January 15, 2007 4:14 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: > Nanotech discoveries will probably be used to make money [snip] O! Brave new world! What horrors await us?! A future where someone might make some money! Shudder the thought! What must be done to stop that from ever happening? :) Regards, Dan From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 15 15:22:58 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:22:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox References: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: ________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of pjmanney Sent: Sun 1/14/2007 10:05 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox I'm posting this latest entry to my blog, at http://pj-manney.blogspot.com/ because I'm curious what the extropes think about this. While it's written as humorous (at least to me) I'm actually serious about the psychological implications of this idea. And what it means about selling H+ ideas as well. Feel free to respond here or on my blog. PJ ************************************** I had an epiphany the other night. I was lying in bed, wondering why the most religiously devout parts of the US (call them Red States, call them Bible Belt, call them Heartland, it matters not) are statistically the places with the highest rates of divorce, domestic violence, murder, child endangerment, kidnapping, serial killers, corporate malfeasance, you name it. They got it. When I worked in the movie-of-the-week (MOW) business oh-so-briefly in the early '90's (because I frankly did not have the stomach for ambulance-chasing the latest woman-in-jeopardy story), we covered the South like a rug, but especially two states that were the most notorious for the most egregious acts against fellow humans: Texas and Florida. Therefore, every self-respecting MOW producer kept track of the local newspapers out of Texas and Florida, especially Northern Florida. They were the homes of Ted Bundy, Aileen Wuornos and Gerard John Schaefer (aka the Killer Cop/the Florida Sex Beast). The Texas Cheerleader Murdering Mom and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And later, Enron and world-class vote stealing. (And let's not forget our present administration and the Bush family's Texas and Florida dynasties. But I digress...) What puzzled me was that these same areas of the country were the most Bible thumping, most devout, most God-fearing parts of the country as well. How could so many people who believed that God would strike them dead if they did wrong, do wrong? Then I thought about all my recent reading in neuroscience and psychology for my novel and my own background in marketing. One of the concepts that is often discussed in both psychology and marketing and has now been confirmed with fMRI technology in brain scans, is how a negated statement is often ignored and instead embraced as its positive. For instance, if there was a picture of you in the newspaper, accompanied by the headline, "Terrorist Suspect found Not Guilty," the average person would see you and remember, "Terrorist... Guilty." The "Not" disappears. Even if intellectually they remembered that you were found not guilty, they would still file you in their brains as a terrorist and reference you as such thereafter. Especially if the previous headlines had accused you of terrorism, because like your mother always said, first impressions last. We use the principle in child rearing all the time. You don't tell a child "Don't run across the street!" because you know they're only hearing "Run Across the Street!" Instead, you say "Stay with Me!" or "Hold My Hand!" The Republicans are masters at this. They make positive statements all the time, like "We found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq" that force their critics to tell the truth and negate them, replying, "There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq." But all the public remembers is the war we're fighting is about Weapons of Mass Destruction. They don't hear the 'No' in the negated, but truthful statement. To the public, the Democrats are simply repeating what the Republicans have been saying the entire time. And then it hit me. The Ten Commandments is a To-Do-List. Whoever wrote Exodus clearly didn't have a degree in Cognitive Psychology. And if God really carved those tablets from the rocks of Mount Sinai, then he needs to take Psych 101. Or Marketing 101. He's just not getting his message across. Because the devout have been paying, and paying, and paying for those little negated statements ever since. They don't hear, "Thou shalt not kill." They hear, "Thou shalt... kill." They don't hear, "Thou shalt not steal." They hear, "Thou shalt... steal." They don't hear, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Instead, they hadn't even thought about coveting their neighbor's wife, but then they think about it for the first time because the Ten Commandments tell them so and they take a good, long look at her and think, "Hey, my neighbor's wife is HOT!" And before they know it, they've broken TWO commandments -- coveting and adultery. Think about it. If I'm wrong, do you have a better explanation for what shall hitherto be known as The Bible Belt Paradox? ------------------------------------------------------- PJ, I agree with your observation about the cognitive psychology of framing negatives, much like "don't think about the elephant in the room", and I agree with your observation of a geosocial correlation between bible thumpers and cruelty. However, while I very much agree that this cruelty is a problem of moral framing, I think the effective frame is larger than, and encompasses the cognitive-linguistic effect that you point out. George Lakoff paints a bigger picture with his comparison of "strict father" versus "nurturing parents" models of moral society. More at http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7598 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 15:34:08 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:34:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:36:50 -0500, Russell Wallace wrote: > I'm inclined to think that issue would be best discussed in the context > of a practical example - do you have one to hand? Sure. An urn contains 100 green and/or red marbles in unknown proportion. We want to know pr(green) (the probability of drawing a green marble). For better or worse, the principle of indifference (PI) tells us that given no evidence to prefer either green or red, we should assign them equal probabilities. So pr(green) = 0.5. We set .5 as the prior probability in bayes' theorem, then begin performing experiments (drawing marbles with replacement), updating our judgmental probability along the way according to the theorem (bayesian conditioning). After we've conditioned on enough evidence our judgmental probability should match, in the limit, the true objective chance of drawing a green marble from the urn (assuming we believe in such things as objective chance). This is I think not a totally unreasonable process, even though our initial prior probability judgment was based on what you and I agree is shaky reasoning. Opposing the PI is the idea that given no evidence, we should assign no probability at all, i.e., that we should accumulate some empirical evidence *before* we start estimating probabilities. But this idea makes some bayesians very uncomfortable. -gts From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 16:16:20 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:16:20 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0701150816l32dfee3p3abbc9a8ff0a97bd@mail.gmail.com> On 1/15/07, gts wrote: > > An urn contains 100 green and/or red marbles in unknown proportion. We > want to know pr(green) (the probability of drawing a green marble). Do we? I don't know about you, but I don't find myself wanting to know the probability of drawing a green marble too often :) Seriously, that's why I said _practical_ example. If it matters, there should be real world cases that can serve as such. If it doesn't matter, well then it doesn't matter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 16:15:38 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:15:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:22:58 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > If I'm wrong, do you have a better explanation for what shall hitherto > be known as The Bible Belt Paradox? In fact I did some research on a similar question last year and learned that red states, especially in the deep south, have lower per capita incomes (and higher poverty rates too, if I remember correctly) than blue states. So the higher crime rates in red states may be better explained by ordinary economic factors than by factors relating to religion. This is not to say the religion factor is not related to the question, but consider that the cause-effect relationship, if any, may be in the direction opposite to that supposed in your paradox. In other words, perhaps higher crime rates are a cause of higher religiosity, not the other way around. -gts From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Jan 15 17:08:47 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:08:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the future under control? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070115101419.03fd6e80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:14 AM 1/15/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: snip >Humans don't choose a specific future. Millions of people make small >choices. Whatever path is seen as necessary (like war) will be chosen. Correct. Now how can you keep people from seeing war as necessary? That's the whole point of my recent work in evolutionary psychology. I can see why people see war as necessary (a bleak economic future, often the result of high birthrates generating a population out of balance with their resources). And I can see a case (the IRA) where lower birth rates eventually mitigated the population seeing war as necessary. But *how* this understanding could be applied to the situation in the Islamic world is beyond me. Ideas are needed here, maybe even harsh ones. >If it means (as it does) that other paths are closed off in our >future, then by default, that's what will happen. True. The amount of money wasted on the most recent war could have made the US independent of mid east oil. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 15 17:11:38 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:11:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com><8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com><8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150816l32dfee3p3abbc9a8ff0a97bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Russell Wallace wrote: On 1/15/07, gts wrote: An urn contains 100 green and/or red marbles in unknown proportion. We want to know pr(green) (the probability of drawing a green marble). Do we? I don't know about you, but I don't find myself wanting to know the probability of drawing a green marble too often :) Seriously, that's why I said _practical_ example. If it matters, there should be real world cases that can serve as such. If it doesn't matter, well then it doesn't matter. I'm busy breaking camp and heading home, but this was too key to pass up. Over the last several hours I've been back-burner thinking about the impass here, that to me hinges on effective understanding of subjectivity. I kept coming back to gts facing paradox because of his expectation that there be a completely objective "correct" answer while neglecting the impossibility of specifying the question in completely objective terms. I kept thinking that it would help him to understand that it's the differerence between asking for the "right" answer and asking for the "best" answer. Which I think is the point of Russell insisting on a "practical" question, a question that matters, and thus highlights the subjective nature of the process. It's like thinking of the Principle of Indifference. With no evidence as to likelihoods there is no information as to what is "right", but as a subjective agent within a necessarily larger context, of course we want to minimize the error and thus choose the central value. If our own context were actually limited to the context of the problem, then of course zero information would imply zero preference, but as subjective beings, this is never the case. I suppose that the same people who get stuck on the Principle of Indifference would also get stuck on the Meaning of Life problem. They are each understandable in the same way. Paradox is always a case of insufficient context. In the bigger picture all the pieces must fit. Or as Eliezer likes to say, "there are no mysterious answers, only mysterious questions." Well, the weekend's over and there's work to be done... - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 17:11:50 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:11:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701150816l32dfee3p3abbc9a8ff0a97bd@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150816l32dfee3p3abbc9a8ff0a97bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:16:20 -0500, Russell Wallace wrote: > Seriously, that's why I said _practical_ example. If it matters, there > should be real world cases that can serve as such. If it doesn't matter, > well then it doesn't matter. Not sure what you're getting at here, but assume you are political pollster commissioned by a politician wanting to know the political make-up of some newly districted congressional district about which there is no reliable prior data, and at a time in which the entire country is in political turmoil such that not even national statistics can be relied upon for priors. Assume also that you don't care about third parties. In that situation, if you are using bayesian methods, you might use the PI and set your prior judgemental probability to .5 of finding, among those voters in the district who say they belong to one of the two major parties, someone who professes to be a democrat. You would then update your judgemental probability as you condition on new evidence (new interviews), just as in the urn example in which you would draw new marbles, with the idea that your posterior judgemental probability will converge in the limit with the objective chance of a person in that group professing to be a democrat. Now, as I indicated in my last message, our original prior above rests on some shaky reasoning (the PI). Opposing the PI is the idea that given no evidence, we should assign no probability at all, i.e., that we should accumulate some empirical evidence *before* we start estimating probabilities. But this idea makes some bayesians very uncomfortable. -gts From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jan 15 17:01:57 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:01:57 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the future under control? In-Reply-To: <00b901c73890$8262af20$a7893cd1@pavilion> References: <00b901c73890$8262af20$a7893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <3430.163.1.72.81.1168880517.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Technotranscendence wrote: > On Monday, January 15, 2007 4:14 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: >> Nanotech discoveries will probably be used to make money [snip] > > O! Brave new world! What horrors await us?! A future where someone > might make some money! Shudder the thought! What must be done to stop > that from ever happening? :) It is actually frighteningly common for people to make statements about promising research along the lines of "...but we must of course make sure it doesn't get too commercial". I have heard it about medical research, stem cells, nanotechnology and many other fields. This attitude is of course a major threat to any serious development of anything - imagine a world where commercial interests were not allowed to affect the development of trains, flight or computers - and it shows that to most people are quite alien to the nature of economics and technological development. A bit like how we have come to ignore the realities of farming in our ever more fussy food scares. As for the control of the future: whenever I hear somebody say that technology is out of control and must be controlled, I ask what they think about art. Clearly art is out of control, you are allowed to paint and sculpt in any style you like, with any subject you can come up with and affecting any mind coming into contact with it. Shouldn't that be put under societal control? After all, art affects society as deeply as technology. Usually "we must bring X under control" means that "I want to control it according to my values". -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 15 17:38:41 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:38:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> At 11:15 AM 1/15/2007 -0500, gts wrote: > >red states, especially in the deep south, have lower per capita >incomes (and higher poverty rates too, if I remember correctly) than blue >states. So the higher crime rates in red states may be better explained by >ordinary economic factors than by factors relating to religion.... >[and] perhaps higher crime rates are a cause of higher >religiosity, not the other way around. Given that internal migration within the States is not difficult if you have the money and get-up-and-go to get up and go, I expect there's been a slow, steady attrition of talent, intelligence, impulse control and imagination from the "red" to the "blue" regions (roughly speaking). Smart people are less likely to adhere to bible-thumping, and less likely to get into violent mischief of a personal order--but once you arrive at the WoMD scale, I think there'd be fewer godbotherers among the nuclearti and weapons-grade hackers. Just a hunch. Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 17:53:08 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:53:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: By the way I think you put it very succinctly here, Russell: > The principle of indifference was never valid as a logical principle. If > I know a coin is unbiased, I'm justified in claiming the probability of > heads on the next toss is 0.5. If all I know is that A or B will happen, > and nothing else, I am _not_ justified in claiming the probability of A > is 0.5. It might be something completely different. Yes. This is a major bone of contention. Some people here insist (in private email as well as here) that the PI is some kind of universal logical principle. Naive dogmatism, I say. -gts From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 17:56:38 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:56:38 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150816l32dfee3p3abbc9a8ff0a97bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0701150956t3542adabi7d48c231fc46f5b7@mail.gmail.com> On 1/15/07, gts wrote: > > Not sure what you're getting at here, but assume you are political > pollster commissioned by a politician wanting to know the political > make-up of some newly districted congressional district about which there > is no reliable prior data, and at a time in which the entire country is in > political turmoil such that not even national statistics can be relied > upon for priors. Assume also that you don't care about third parties. Okay that's a reasonably practical example, thanks. (Like Jef said, context matters.) In that situation, if you are using bayesian methods, you might use the PI > and set your prior judgemental probability to .5 of finding, among those > voters in the district who say they belong to one of the two major > parties, someone who professes to be a democrat. Not if you wanted an answer that reflected reality, you wouldn't. Rather than just make up a number like .5 for no reason, at the very least you can start with the results of the last election, which give actual data on the probability of a randomly selected person being a member of party A vs B. Maybe said data is no longer very reliable, but if you just make things up the reliability is zero, so better to use what you have. Then you probably have some sort of data on how this varies with social groups or whatever, that lets you narrow it down a bit. If that's still not enough for a reliable answer, you go out and gather data by polling substantial numbers of people, and use the result of that as your prior for further investigation. You'd never actually rely on the principle of indifference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 18:08:23 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:08:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701150956t3542adabi7d48c231fc46f5b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150816l32dfee3p3abbc9a8ff0a97bd@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150956t3542adabi7d48c231fc46f5b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:56:38 -0500, Russell Wallace wrote: > Not if you wanted an answer that reflected reality, you wouldn't. Rather > than just make up a number like .5 for no reason, at the very least you > can start with the results of the last election, which give actual data > on the probability of a randomly selected person being a member of party > A vs B. You missed one of my starting assumptions: I wrote that we're conducting this political research "at a time in which the entire country is in political turmoil such that not even national statistics can be relied upon for priors." > You'd never actually rely on the principle of indifference. I'm not sure I really want to argue with you that there is any time in which one absolutely must rely on the PI, because like you I am inclined to agree with those who would like to dispel the belief that the PI is a valid principle of logic. However others here are not so inclined, so I've been playing the devil's advocate. -gts From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 18:12:46 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:12:46 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150816l32dfee3p3abbc9a8ff0a97bd@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150956t3542adabi7d48c231fc46f5b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0701151012r6e606694uae43276c24b667b7@mail.gmail.com> On 1/15/07, gts wrote: > > You missed one of my starting assumptions: I wrote that we're conducting > this political research "at a time in which the entire country is in > political turmoil such that not even national statistics can be relied > upon for priors." > Nope, I covered that in the bits where I said "Maybe said data is no longer very reliable, but if you just make things up [i.e. use the principle of indifference] the reliability is zero, so better to use what you have." and "If that's still not enough for a reliable answer, you go out and gather data by polling substantial numbers of people, and use the result of that as your prior for further investigation." I'm not sure I really want to argue with you that there is any time in > which one absolutely must rely on the PI, because like you I am inclined > to agree with those who would like to dispel the belief that the PI is a > valid principle of logic. Well then we have no disagreement ^.^ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 18:23:04 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:23:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701151012r6e606694uae43276c24b667b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150816l32dfee3p3abbc9a8ff0a97bd@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150956t3542adabi7d48c231fc46f5b7@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701151012r6e606694uae43276c24b667b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:12:46 -0500, Russell Wallace wrote: > "If that's still not enough for a reliable answer, you go out and gather > data by polling substantial numbers of people, and use the result of > that as your prior for further investigation." At that point you are no longer acting in an orthodox bayesian fashion, I think, because you are now depending on frequentist notions to set your priors. > Well then we have no disagreement ^.^ :) -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 15 18:39:53 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:39:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Heartland wrote: > Jef, it sounds like you're a card-carrying functionalist. :-) Okay, but of the never-know-the-whole-context kind. > Jef: > I never said that promoting one's values is more important than promoting one's > survival. > > I'm sorry Jef, but that is exactly what you've been saying (just look at your > previous sentence). If you hadn't been saying that I wouldn't have been compelled > to reply to your posts. I'm sure you don't think you are saying that, but you do. > (read below) > > Jef: > What I said is that fundamentally what we do is try to affect our environment in > such a way that we promote our values into the future (values for survival > included.). > > > And some values are more important than trying to stay alive, right? Yes, some values may be more important than staying alive. But please understand that fundamental does not mean important. > So, it seems to you that this stipulation of "[promoting survival] without > requiring an explicit goal of 'you must survive!' makes all this right and > logically consistent. Let's then focus on this. How can you claim that promoting > survival is more important than promoting (survival-unrelated) values and still > insist that explicit goal of staying alive is less important than promoting values? > In other words, how can trying to survive be more important than staying alive? > Staying alive *is the whole point* of trying to survive. It's as if someone > campaigned hard for candidate X while not caring about whether or not X wins the > office. Cosmides and Tooby: "Humans are adaptation executors rather than fitness maximizers." If you understand the above statement, then you would understand my point. You can google on that phrase as well as on "framing problem" for more. > Jef: > Seeking pleasure is ammoral , but tends to correlate with activity that we would > assess as "good". > ---- > I would say that's a very strong correlation. :-) Perhaps strong enough to define > "good" as "pleasure?" So the pleasure experienced by a rapist means rape is good? So the high of heroin means drug-induced bliss is good? So the satisfaction of gaining from another's loss is good? All of these "goods" fail very quickly as the context is extended. So the aches and pains of a hard days's work would is bad? So the loss of 100 lives to defend our homeland would is bad? So paying one's electrical bill is bad? All of these "bads" become good as the context is extended. Before you being justifying via "these activities are in anticipation of the ultimately pleasurable outcome" just take a look at higher-level look at the nature of your argument. If we were to plot a a chart of pleasure versus goodness, we would see a very strange curve, implying that while there is correlation, it's not a direct relationship. Try it in your mind. A huge degree of pleasure for the heroin addict and the rapist, with very little good. A small degree of pleasure for paying your electric bill, but a very substantial good. Now, you could argue that the good is integrated over extended time. You could argue that the heroin addict suffers much more pain over a long period of time, but please consider that decisions and expected reward are in the present, and the heroin addict might slide from bliss to coma, with no pain to balance your equation. Now, if you'd like a simple, coherent, monotonic, extensible definition of "good", consider: ******** Actions are assessed as good to the extent that they are expected to promote our present values into the future. ******** Taking that one step further, actions are considered "right" or "moral" to the extent that they are assessed as "good" over increasing scope of consequences. ******** None of this can be derived from "pleasure" because pleasure is merely a higher level adaptation, a subjective indication, a side-effect, of what tends to work. It's not fundamental. Hmmm. It seems that you snipped my challenge to you about the "pleasure of ant and amoebas"... > Heartland: > If you or someone else can show why wireheading is wrong without > resorting to the obvious "yuck factor" I would like to read it.) > > Jef: > Wireheading can be useful to the extent it improves functioning by compensating for > performance impairments due to detrimental side-effects of our evolved > configuration. For example, physical pain is a useful adaptation in that it forces > a prompt (and usually appropriate) response by the organism away from danger. > However, a detrimental side-effect of this useful adaption is the possibility of > lingering or disabling pain. Similarly for mental and emotional conditions that > might be compensated beneficially to improve the functioning of the (human) > organism. > ---- > > Yes. > > Jef: > However, wireheading can be very bad to the extent that it subverts the "pleasure > sense" by changing values toward environment, short-circuiting the healthy mode of > allowing the agent to change environment toward values. Such short-cicuiting of > the growth process is morally neutral with regard to the individual, but > detrimental and morally wrong from the point of view of others in the community. > ---- > On the face of it, this is a strong argument, but consider this. Pleasure is not > only chocolate and sex (as I cautioned against this knee-jerk thought before) but > also seeing a healthy environment and happy community. If wireheading has a natural > tendency to change values toward environment, that powerful force will be > automatically balanced by an opposing force that says, "it would be wrong to change > values as this change could negatively affect my environment which would certainly > diminish my potential for experiencing pleasure in the future." This simple and > "cold" benefit vs. cost analysis would keep a rational agent on the path of > "pleasure growth" resulting in equal benefits to the individual *and* society. > > Obviously, this "agent" doesn't necessarily refer to a present-day human. This > could only work for rational agents. The point is that it's not that wireheading > itself is broken, but that humans still are. And do you really think there can ever be a completely rational agent? > > > > Jef: > If we're going to attempt to continue this discussion, I think it would be very > effective if we tried reversing roles. If agreeable, you can reply by clearly > summarizing my position (my point of view) as coherently as possible, then state > why anyone might have a problem with it. I'll do the same for your position. This > should greatly minimize the tendency to talk past one another. > ---- > > Ah, it's that trap again. Fool me once... . :-) Yes, it's a wonderfully effective technique for exposing the extent of the other party's understanding. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 9448 bytes Desc: not available URL: From randall at randallsquared.com Mon Jan 15 18:36:41 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:36:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the future under control? In-Reply-To: <3430.163.1.72.81.1168880517.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <00b901c73890$8262af20$a7893cd1@pavilion> <3430.163.1.72.81.1168880517.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <649A55EE-95EC-488C-BF3E-E976154E8E3C@randallsquared.com> On Jan 15, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > As for the control of the future: whenever I hear somebody say that > technology is out of control and must be controlled, I ask what > they think > about art. Clearly art is out of control, you are allowed to paint and > sculpt in any style you like, with any subject you can come up with > and > affecting any mind coming into contact with it. Shouldn't that be put > under societal control? After all, art affects society as deeply as > technology. Usually "we must bring X under control" means that "I > want to > control it according to my values". And what do you say when they tentatively agree with you about art? I've abandoned this kind of argument precisely because in the last 5-10 years (in the US), I usually find that people are willing to consider *anything* as being more properly under government control. There doesn't seem to be any presumption that there are things which the government should stay out of, and when I bring up *that* idea, I find that I've put myself in crazy-land, from the perspective of those around me. Most of this is in offline interaction, of course. -- Randall Randall "This is a fascinating question, right up there with whether rocks fall because of gravity or being dropped, and whether 3+5=5+3 because addition is commutative or because they both equal 8." - Scott Aaronson From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 20:03:14 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:03:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com> <004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:39:53 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > Now, if you'd like a simple, coherent, monotonic, extensible definition > of "good", consider: > ******** > Actions are assessed as good to the extent that they are expected to > promote ourpresent values into the future. > ******* > Nice try, Jef, but that is only a definition what actions some people might assess as good, not a definition of good. Nazis considered extermination of certain races "good". They thought such exterminations would "promote our present values into the future". I think they were probably wrong. -gts From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Jan 15 20:17:28 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:17:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox Message-ID: <14436890.225591168892248650.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Guilio wrote: >Interesting thoughts Patricia, and I agree with the marketing insight. >But I think I have a much simpler explanation for The Bible Belt >Paradox. >The simpler explanation being that self-righteousness and intolerance >correlate strongly with aggression and sociopathic behaviour: both >express the primitive brain circuits against the more developed ones. I know my explanation is deeply narrow and more stand-up comedy than rigorous hypothesis. But I think it's a chicken-or-egg thing. What comes into play in both your scenario and the negative-statement scenario is the limbic system, which deals with our fears and emotions around those fears, among other things. It's why negativity is so powerful. We don't just process it cognitively. Fear/negativity runs around the amygdala before it hits the frontal cortex. And unless we consciously try to do otherwise, we listen to the amygdala before we listen to our more rational impulses. (Which is why I don't participate in the debates on rationality on the list. I don't know anyone who really is. A few are close, but close is for shaves.) Religion, as several have discussed, is often based on fear. Fear of not surviving is why the Old Testement was written in the first place. The OT (as well as the Talmud) existed to help those desert tribes survive in a pretty tough environment. And fearful times demanded fearful measures. I just wish everybody would get over thinking they're some Abrahamic tribe member... So maybe the question is, why are some people more fearful than others? Why are some people wired with over-active amygdalas and other's aren't? Now that's a cognitive enhancement we could use right now. PJ From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Jan 15 20:20:20 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:20:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox Message-ID: <13695776.226081168892420922.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >PJ, I agree with your observation about the cognitive psychology of framing >negatives, much like "don't think about the elephant in the room", and I agree >with your observation of a geosocial correlation between bible thumpers and >cruelty. > >However, while I very much agree that this cruelty is a problem of moral >framing, I think the effective frame is larger than, and encompasses the >cognitive-linguistic effect that you point out. > >George Lakoff paints a bigger picture with his comparison of "strict father" >versus "nurturing parents" models of moral society. More at >http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html Thanks for this. I've always wanted to read him, just never got around to it, especially after he and Steve Pinker faced off for weeks in The New Republic. Didn't read those, either, but I guess I should have... I'm adding it to the pile. PJ From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Jan 15 20:31:55 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:31:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox Message-ID: <11996302.227921168893115925.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Damien wrote: >Given that internal migration within the States is not difficult if >you have the money and get-up-and-go to get up and go, I expect >there's been a slow, steady attrition of talent, intelligence, >impulse control and imagination from the "red" to the "blue" regions >(roughly speaking). Smart people are less likely to adhere to >bible-thumping, and less likely to get into violent mischief of a >personal order-- Maybe. Although there has been a big migration for economic reasons into the Sun Belt cities. >but once you arrive at the WoMD scale, I think >there'd be fewer godbotherers among the nuclearti and weapons-grade hackers. Given the recent reports about Justice Dept. and Pentagon prayer groups and the fact that internal promotion in these departments is tied with one's attendence and religious philosophy, I'm not so sure. I'm waiting to hear an official Pentagon concern about "precious bodily fluids" any day now. ;-) PJ From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 15 20:48:33 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:48:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <11996302.227921168893115925.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <11996302.227921168893115925.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701151248j193e9de2w264620be71faed23@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > >but once you arrive at the WoMD scale, I think > >there'd be fewer godbotherers among the nuclearti and weapons-grade hackers. > > Given the recent reports about Justice Dept. and Pentagon prayer groups and the fact that internal promotion in these departments is tied with one's attendence and religious philosophy, I'm not so sure. I know a bunch of nuclear scientists at Los Alamos Labs ... these guys are definitely "weapons hackers" ... and their culture and mentality is definitely that of secular-humanist physics nerds.... Yes, they believe that the US should remain the world power because the alternatives are even worse, and that having the best nukes is critical for maintaining world power status. But they are really not very Strangelovian, nor Bush-ian, or whatever. They are definitely rationalists, and at least one has some Singularitarian insight.... And BTW many of them are pissed at Bush for stem cells and Iraq, and for not caring more about stopping nuclear proliferation outside the US... OTOH, I have encountered some Strangelovian characters in the DC military establishment (including a guy I thought for months was named "Colonel Hardcock", but it turned out just to be an oddly pronounced "Colonel Hartcox" or some such...). But the DC military world is rather disconnected from the day-to-day of the Los Alamos nukular scientists... -- Ben G From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 15 20:53:34 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:53:34 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <14436890.225591168892248650.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <14436890.225591168892248650.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070115144015.02fcd1a8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 02:17 PM 1/15/2007, PJ wrote: >So maybe the question is, why are some people more fearful than >others? Why are some people wired with over-active amygdalas and other's >aren't? Now that's a cognitive enhancement we could use right now. What we need is a big magnifying glass to get in there and dig around a bit. "The next step, Canli said, is to try to find out why the amygdala lights up more in some people than others. "No one knows," he said. "Imaging is a fantastic tool to discover these relationships and to localize them in the brain in the context of the specific tasks that people do. But to explain the biology underlying these phenomena, we will have to go to lower levels of analysis, particularly molecular biology." (Lisa Trei, Stanford) 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 15 21:09:46 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:09:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <11996302.227921168893115925.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <11996302.227921168893115925.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070115150749.024ece88@satx.rr.com> At 03:31 PM 1/15/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: > >but once you arrive at the WoMD scale, I think > >there'd be fewer godbotherers among the nuclearti and weapons-grade hackers. > >Given the recent reports about Justice Dept. and Pentagon prayer >groups and the fact that internal promotion in these departments is >tied with one's attendence and religious philosophy, I'm not so sure. There's a difference (I hope) between creators of and potential users/deployers of. But I'm probably out of my depth; I'm a stranger in a very strange land. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 15 21:31:41 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:31:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <11996302.227921168893115925.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <11996302.227921168893115925.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070115152602.021bc1c0@satx.rr.com> At 03:31 PM 1/15/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: > >Smart people are less likely to adhere to > >bible-thumping, and less likely to get into violent mischief of a > >personal order-- > >Maybe. Although there has been a big migration for economic reasons >into the Sun Belt cities. Omg! Elderly Jews retiring to Florida are taking up axe murdering and chainsaw massacres? Or is this a matter of dispossessed farmers or former factory fodder moving to CA and TX for the climate? I see, btw, that wikipedia sez: And it's the Bible buggers we're concerned about, I think? Damien Broderick From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Jan 15 21:46:51 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:46:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox Message-ID: <29096548.237051168897611244.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Damien wrote: >Omg! Elderly Jews retiring to Florida are taking up axe murdering and >chainsaw massacres? Or is this a matter of dispossessed farmers or >former factory fodder moving to CA and TX for the climate? No, no, no, no, no! Not retirees. Young, upwardly mobile (they hope) workers, in cities like Atlanta, Phoenix, Las Vegas (and not for gambling), Houston, Austin, etc. Alternative tech-centers, phonebank centers, mail-order companies and really, any other companies. The companies and their employees like the weather, yes, but they love the tax breaks, the reduced cost of living, the lower wages (from the POV of the companies) etc. >I see, btw, that wikipedia sez: > >often referred to as Bible Belt states, while southwestern states >extending to the Pacific coast (New Mexico, Arizona, and California) >are most often associated with a life-style synonymous with the Sun Belt.> True-ish. But I really was thinking about the entire swath, from Arizona to Florida. PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 15 21:59:56 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:59:56 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <29096548.237051168897611244.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <29096548.237051168897611244.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070115155637.021f7e60@satx.rr.com> At 04:46 PM 1/15/2007 -0500, pj wrote: >No, no, no, no, no! Not retirees. Young, upwardly mobile (they >hope) workers, in cities like Atlanta, Phoenix, Las Vegas (and not >for gambling), Houston, Austin, etc. Alternative tech-centers, >phonebank centers, mail-order companies and really, any other >companies. The companies and their employees like the weather, yes, >but they love the tax breaks, the reduced cost of living, the lower >wages (from the POV of the companies) etc. Yeah, but the Q. remains: are these the ones doin' the smiting' and massacrin'? Maybe the upmob demographic shift will lead to a lower blood count? (Or no, maybe the local habitues will beat the uppity newcomers to death with their bibles.) Damien Broderick From brian at posthuman.com Mon Jan 15 22:24:34 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:24:34 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Diamond Age miniseries coming from Clooney/Stephenson Message-ID: <45ABFF22.5000404@posthuman.com> http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=39447 -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 23:12:56 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:12:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:20:18 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > There is no one true meaning here. The meaning of "random" is, as all > meaning, dependent on context. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've seen you write about "context" in the last two or three years. Apparently you really think you're onto something new. -gts From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 23:44:23 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:44:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> On 1/13/07, gts wrote: > > If the Bertrand paradox is fundamentally unsolvable then it seems to me > the principle of indifference is toast as a logical principle, and if so > then it seems two rational agents would be free in certain cases to use > different bayesian priors. ### I would see it this way: The meaning of "random" is "obeying the principle of indifference, where the sample space is unambiguously described". If the sample space is exactly two outcomes, then each one must occur 50% of the time, or else the coin is weighted, and the tosses are not quite random anymore. But regarding the second issue, I would somewhat agree with you. As a general rule, fully rational agents must agree on questions of fact (as Robin Hanson says) but then there seem to be exceptions. Disagreement is at times unavoidable, principally where the agents are not aware of each other's calibration, or may be perhaps unable to communicate the magnitude of differences in their calibration (a small child and an adult, or a human and an SAI). If agents cannot quantitatively assess each other's calibration, at least one of them may be unable to properly adjust its priors, and disagreement will remain, even in the absence of self-deception. Rafal From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jan 16 01:49:47 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:49:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] A future fit to live in? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070112102149.04b24af0@pop-server.austin.rr.com><5366105b0701121101t619f6a45q18db037e022ea502@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070112134317.0241e908@satx.rr.com><004101c73737$6d9e0530$26054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org on behalf of gts On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:39:53 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > Now, if you'd like a simple, coherent, monotonic, extensible definition > of "good", consider: > ******** > Actions are assessed as good to the extent that they are expected to > promote ourpresent values into the future. > ******* > > > Nice try, Jef, but that is only a definition what actions some people > might assess as good, not a definition of good. > > Nazis considered extermination of certain races "good". They thought such > exterminations would "promote our present values into the future". > > I think they were probably wrong. Gorden, I'll combine my response to this and your rather whiney post complaining about how often I mention "context". Semiosis is not a new idea, but it seems to be one you're having trouble with. The point that you repeatedly fail to grasp is that all meaning, including "good", is context-dependent. For some people, certain acts of genocide were good. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, good is in the mind of he who assesses it to be so. If I were to shoot at someone and my bullet hits the target, I consider that good. But that doesn't imply that it was a moral act, because "moral" means assessed as "good" over a wide scope. It's ironic that you're confusing "good" with "right" or "moral", since I highlighted the difference in the line immediately following that which you so flippantly deride. Apparently you didn't get it, so you ignored it. It's the same problem you're having with probability, thinking that you can expect a fully objective answer from a less than objective question. You toss around famous names of people and elegant principles of thought with no indication that you grasp or appreciate the profound beauty of these statements of regularity observable in our interactions with "reality". It's sad, and as many point out, rather a waste of time. - Jef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jan 16 01:41:22 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:41:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701160152.l0G1q2Q3005880@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts ... > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox > > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:22:58 -0500, Jef Allbright > wrote: > > > If I'm wrong, do you have a better explanation for what shall hitherto > > be known as The Bible Belt Paradox?... > > In other words, perhaps higher crime rates are a cause of higher > religiosity, not the other way around. > > -gts This is similar to where my own intuition takes me. Lack of money is the root of all evil. Evil causes the social ills that proles attempt to solve via religion incorporated. Therefore we best alleviate social ills and religion by cutting taxes, thereby attacking the root cause of both. spike From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jan 16 11:54:06 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:54:06 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070115152602.021bc1c0@satx.rr.com> References: <11996302.227921168893115925.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115152602.021bc1c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2425.81.129.212.39.1168948446.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> This morning's micro-paper: I did a quick check in the General Social Survey (http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/), cross-tabulating the question about whether the respondent had ever been arrested and the question about their self-stated fundamentalist rating. The answer was messy. Fundamentalists were more likely to have been arrested than expected by sheer chanse, although the z-score was pretty low, 0.62. There was a clear anti-correlation between moderate fundamentalism (whatever that is) and arrest, z=-3.25 and a clear correlation between being liberal in religious matter and having been arrested, z=3.36. They were also more likely to have traffic tickets. Looking at the CIDEKNEW variable, how many people known to the respondent who were victims of homicide last year a rather chilling pattern emerged. Among fundamentalists far more knew 1-4 victims than would be expected by chance, while moderates and liberals did not have the same pattern. I have not done any anti-confounder modifications here, so some might be due to SES. I find more fundamentalists in lower and working class, and more liberals in the middle and upper class (the same when using self-stated social rank). There were a clear pattern in thinking that one should obey the law with no exception rather than follow one's conscience, with fundamentalists strongly for law while the most liberal tending to approve of conscience. On the other hand, fundamentalists disapprove of wiretapping more strongly than non-fundamentalists (although on average, everybody in the study disapproved). My picture is that fundamentalism is basically conservatism in the religious field, and given the findings that mortality salience can make you more conservative, maybe the cause of the religiousness is simply that these are violent areas (or parts of society)? People with more secure lives do not need the comfort of conservative thinking and cleaving to old values, so they become more liberal. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jan 16 12:19:33 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:19:33 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the future under control? In-Reply-To: <649A55EE-95EC-488C-BF3E-E976154E8E3C@randallsquared.com> References: <00b901c73890$8262af20$a7893cd1@pavilion> <3430.163.1.72.81.1168880517.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <649A55EE-95EC-488C-BF3E-E976154E8E3C@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: <60826.86.151.137.55.1168949973.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Randall Randall wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> As for the control of the future: whenever I hear somebody say that >> technology is out of control and must be controlled, I ask what >> they think >> about art. Clearly art is out of control, you are allowed to paint and >> sculpt in any style you like, with any subject you can come up with >> and >> affecting any mind coming into contact with it. Shouldn't that be put >> under societal control? After all, art affects society as deeply as >> technology. Usually "we must bring X under control" means that "I >> want to >> control it according to my values". > > And what do you say when they tentatively agree with you > about art? Then I happily go on reductio ad absurdum to see how much wilder things they want to regulate. After all, we need to make sure that gardening is done properly. And churches need to be government certified so they are not crazy cults, nicht wahr? People who think everything should be regulated often get into a spin when they realize that there might be other regulators out there who want to regulate just as much as they do, but from completely different values. That often drives them to flip to a very anti-regulation perspective. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 14:59:42 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:59:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0701141740u276b38e9x772907aaed29e4e2@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701141836o548b39bfxce1cfbd257ed5ea0@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150816l32dfee3p3abbc9a8ff0a97bd@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701150956t3542adabi7d48c231fc46f5b7@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0701151012r6e606694uae43276c24b667b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:12:46 -0500, Russell Wallace wrote.. >> If that's still not enough for a reliable answer, you go out and gather >> data by polling substantial numbers of people, and use the result of >> that as your prior for further investigation. Revisiting this... Our bayesian-minded pollster wants to estimate the % of democrats among voters in a given district. For whatever reason he believes (and we stipulate) that he has no reliable prior data for use in bayes' theorem. Ordinarily this would be a situation in which the researcher would invoke the principle of indifference to obtain a prior, but we have doubts about the legitimacy of the PI. He follows our recommendation that he ignore the PI and instead "go out and gather data by polling substantial numbers of people, and use the result of that as your prior for further investigation." But "polling substantial numbers of people" to obtain a probability is exactly what our researcher had intended in the first place! So now his job is already done, but he's done it with frequentist rather than bayesian methods. By denying him use of the principle of indifference we have converted him from a logical bayesian into an objective frequentist (possibly while kicking and screaming). This is how the PI is integral to certain logical theories of probability. If the PI is not a valid logical principle then the logical interpretations of probability go down with it. Bayes' theorem survives of course, but not in its *logical* implementation. I think that is not such a bad thing, necessarily. It's quite a stretch I think to assume as do the logical theorists that probability theory is a branch of formal logic. Normally a conclusion is entailed by the premises, and certain if the premises are true, but such is obviously not the case when the premises are statistical data. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 16:29:04 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:29:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:44:23 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### I would see it this way: The meaning of "random" is "obeying the > principle of indifference, where the sample space is unambiguously > described". If the sample space is exactly two outcomes, then each one > must occur 50% of the time, or else the coin is weighted, and the > tosses are not quite random anymore. Hmm, I think this is not at all what is or should be the definition of "random". As the word is normally defined, a series of tosses of an unfair coin still result in a completely random sequence! How can you suggest otherwise? In objectivist terms, all that matters for the sake of randomness is that the sequence satisfy what von Mises called "The Law of Excluded Gambling Systems", which is just to say (roughly) that the sequence must contain no predictable sub-sequences, i.e., that the result of each toss is independent of the others. (Subjectivists have a different way of saying essentially the same thing.) -gts From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jan 16 17:11:50 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:11:50 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> References: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> I just put up an extended version of my analysis on my blog, http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2007/01/criminal_because_of_god_or_godly_because_of_crime.html so you can actually see the GSS results and check them. I also added an analysis of how fearful they were, and it supports my hypothesis that the fundamentalism-crime correlation is caused by fundamentalism being a coping mechanism towards a dangerous environment. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 16 17:23:35 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:23:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> Hi, The classic work on defining randomness is: P. Martin-Lof " On the concept of a random sequence " , Theory Probability Appl. 11: 177-179, (1966) Roughly speaking: No computable function betting on the bits of a Martin-Lof random sequence can make arbitrarily large amounts of money. This is known to be equivalent to Chaitin's definition of randomness as incompressibility, see http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/ait9.html and see http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/math/papers/martingale_final.pdf for more recent work. An extension to quantum computing (random qubit series) is here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999chao.dyn..9031S Note that all these definitions are about the randomness of infinitely long sequences, hence not too useful for finite real-world situations. It seems that the notion of randomness is definable objectively only for infinite entities. To define randomness for finite entities one needs to introduce an observer and define X as random if "observer O can see no patterns in X." How does this help with the PI and so forth? Not at all as far as I can tell, it's just the only work I know that formally addresses the issue of defining randomness ;-) -- Ben G On 1/16/07, gts wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:44:23 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > > ### I would see it this way: The meaning of "random" is "obeying the > > principle of indifference, where the sample space is unambiguously > > described". If the sample space is exactly two outcomes, then each one > > must occur 50% of the time, or else the coin is weighted, and the > > tosses are not quite random anymore. > > Hmm, I think this is not at all what is or should be the definition of > "random". > > As the word is normally defined, a series of tosses of an unfair coin > still result in a completely random sequence! How can you suggest > otherwise? > > In objectivist terms, all that matters for the sake of randomness is that > the sequence satisfy what von Mises called "The Law of Excluded Gambling > Systems", which is just to say (roughly) that the sequence must contain no > predictable sub-sequences, i.e., that the result of each toss is > independent of the others. (Subjectivists have a different way of saying > essentially the same thing.) > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 17:25:22 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:25:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the future under control? In-Reply-To: <60826.86.151.137.55.1168949973.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <00b901c73890$8262af20$a7893cd1@pavilion> <3430.163.1.72.81.1168880517.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <649A55EE-95EC-488C-BF3E-E976154E8E3C@randallsquared.com> <60826.86.151.137.55.1168949973.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 1/16/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > People who think everything should be regulated often get into a spin when > they realize that there might be other regulators out there who want to > regulate just as much as they do, but from completely different values. > That often drives them to flip to a very anti-regulation perspective. > > -- I feel I should mention that my original post wasn't really advocating more regulation. It was meant more on the lines of "Look - the future's uncontrollable!". :) I was responding to Jef's complaint that the people and decision makers weren't rational enough to solve the complex problems facing us. My expectation is that the future will happen more or less accidentally. Lots of little decisions gradually accumulate, paths open and paths close, and we end up where we end up. Mind you life might become interesting when nano factories and virus manipulation become readily available and start to appear in the garages and basements of every geek, angry teen and criminal. Did you notice that spam hit a peak of 94% of all email in December? Think how much fun they will have with nano factories. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 16 17:50:36 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:50:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> At 06:11 PM 1/16/2007 +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: >it supports my hypothesis that the >fundamentalism-crime correlation is caused by fundamentalism being a >coping mechanism towards a dangerous environment. Yes, but does this speak to the question of *why* such environments are especially dangerous? I still back my off the cuff suggestion that as duller people with constitutionally impaired impulse control accumulate in a region without many outlets or productive constraints, they will steadily make the environment more hazardous for everyone else there--and their relatives will share some of their vulnerability for superstitious memes especially of a brutal and authoritarian kind. On the other hand, this is perhaps an absurdly reductive and partial account. Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 17:45:22 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:45:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:23:35 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > It seems that the notion of randomness is definable objectively only > for infinite entities. Yes, at least under the frequentist interpretation no doubt assumed by these researchers. And this infinity issue exists as a philosophical problem not only for the definition of "random" but also for the definition of "probability". As you probably already know, probability on the frequentist view is calculated as the relative frequency of an outcome in the limit as the number of observations goes to infinity. (This is how most of us where taught to believe. Certainly I was.) Von Mises, who developed the frequency theory, defended his use of mathematical infinities by arguing that he was merely 'abstracting' or 'idealizing' the objective laws of nature from empirical observations, in the same way as it is thought all scientists do. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 18:20:55 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:20:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:23:35 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > How does this help with the PI and so forth? Not at all as far as I > can tell, it's just the only work I know that formally addresses the > issue of defining randomness ;-) In 1928, Richard von Mises published _Probability, Statistics and Truth_, which pretty much started the frequentist revolution in probability. In that book he developed two supposed 'empirical laws of probability': The first law was not entirely original to him (he was following after Venn, famous for Venn diagrams, and after someone else whose name I don't recall). This first law is the law that relative frequencies converge as the number observations increase. As everyone knows, if you flip a fair coin enough times the % of heads will converge on 50% to any degree of precision. Von Mises' second law was his own 'discovery': it is about the definition and meaning of randomness, what I have called here "The Law of Excluded Gambling Systems". Principle of the Impossibility of a Gambling System http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/impossibility-of-a-gambling-system-principle.php I don't think the frequency definition of "random" has changed very much since then, though Popper and some other people have attempted to improve on von Mises' theories. -gts From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 16 18:25:40 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:25:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> On 1/16/07, gts wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:23:35 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel > wrote: > > > It seems that the notion of randomness is definable objectively only > > for infinite entities. > > Yes, at least under the frequentist interpretation no doubt assumed by > these researchers. I am not sure this observation about randomness is tied to frequentism, actually. How would you define randomness of a finite entity **objectively** (independently of the observer) from a Bayesian point of view? This is an interesting topic... ;-) -- Ben From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Jan 16 17:44:28 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:44:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <45150.72.236.102.101.1168969468.squirrel@main.nc.us> > I just put up an extended version of my analysis on my blog, > > http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2007/01/criminal_because_of_god_or_godly_because_of_crime.html > > so you can actually see the GSS results and check them. I also added an > analysis of how fearful they were, and it supports my hypothesis that the > fundamentalism-crime correlation is caused by fundamentalism being a > coping mechanism towards a dangerous environment. > > That was interesting, Anders! :) Like all such surveys, though, I have questions. When I think about how secure and safe I am in my home or whether there are places I would not walk alone at night, I am forced to answer in a way I think you do not mean. I am afraid of forest fire here - and of trees falling in storms. This makes me feel insecure in my home rather often. :( I do not walk outdoors much at night, there are coyotes, bears, feral dogs, and venomous snakes here. Not to mention rabies in the raccoon population, IIUC. I've had a traffic ticket for "incomplete stop at a stop sign" - 35 years ago, so I'd have to say yes, I've had a ticket. Yet I consider myself to be law abiding. Considering that many of the fundamentalist communities are rather tight-knit, I wonder what kind of overlap one has in these "murder" numbers? I mean, if a church family was killed, then everybody in that congregation and probably several neighboring ones knows the same family. I've not ever designed a survey, though, and perhaps this kind of thing is somehow weeded out? Regards, MB From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jan 16 20:25:20 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:25:20 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <45150.72.236.102.101.1168969468.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <45150.72.236.102.101.1168969468.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <49680.86.151.137.55.1168979120.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> MB wrote: > Like all such surveys, though, I have questions. Yes, the points you raise are important. Badly worded questions, biased samples of people and too sensitive questions like the traffic ticket one can mess up the study in tricky ways. GSS consists of contacting randomly selected US residents and asking them a huge battery of questions about everything. It produces a wonderfully broad dataset where you can check the link between hunting and vocabulary scores, but it is not as exact as a study properly designed to find out why people are fundamentalists. I think with some work I could improve my data analysis to get rid of a few likely biases, but it will never be as good as a real study. Which might again miss a lot - study design is very hard to do, and the woolier the subject the harder it is to ask the right questions. So we should not believe these findings too much. They are just the first step in someone's research. > Considering that many of the fundamentalist communities are rather > tight-knit, I > wonder what kind of overlap one has in these "murder" numbers? I mean, if > a church > family was killed, then everybody in that congregation and probably > several > neighboring ones knows the same family. This is true, but given that they only sampled around 10,000 people out of the entire US population it is unlikely they accidentally got several people in the same congregation. This of course requires that the sampling is indeed random; in this case I would believe it. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jan 16 20:36:23 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:36:23 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> References: <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <50623.86.151.137.55.1168979783.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > Yes, but does this speak to the question of *why* such environments > are especially dangerous? I still back my off the cuff suggestion > that as duller people with constitutionally impaired impulse control > accumulate in a region without many outlets or productive > constraints, they will steadily make the environment more hazardous > for everyone else there--and their relatives will share some of their > vulnerability for superstitious memes especially of a brutal and > authoritarian kind. On the other hand, this is perhaps an absurdly > reductive and partial account. I think we have a feedback effect here. Duller and impulse impaired people have a hard time doing well in society, so they congregate where living is cheap enough. Such places are often cheap because of lack of productivity, and having 'bad' people around retains their bad reputation, prevents development and keeps them cheap. Living in this environment (even if you are not dull) might predispose you towards religion as a coping mechanism. Maybe there are pro-religion genes that correlate with antisocial traits or traits that also makes you worse off, but even without them I think one can get fundamentalism as a result of the bad encironment. Now, there is probably a bit of feedback from fundamentalism in the form of authoritarian upbringings, which might be harming particularly vulnerable people and make them less able to do well, closing the cycle. As I argued in my blog the fundamentalism/conservatism might also reduce outside investments in the area. Add to this the formation and maintenance of culture, where people often construct self-serving or maladaptive explanations of why things are as they are and why they should remain so, and you get a whole tangle of vicious cycles. How do we break them? It might be that there are no particular ways of doing this and that we need to deal with all the issues (helping dull become smarter, increase available money, improve security, encourage tolerance and education, changes in rent economics etc). Or maybe it is possible to set up positive feedback loops, like how an IKEA store apparently got East Palo Alto to start moving forward again (brings in money, the local council gets taxes to fund projects, other stores grow up next to it, people get jobs, neighbourhoods become more secure etc). If there was a way of seeding virtuous cycles reliably it would be great. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 16 18:26:31 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:26:31 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] IMAGES: Second Life Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070116122336.02fcfb40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Does anyone have a great image of a transhumanist meeting in SL that I could use for a paper I am sending to Australia re BioArt / BioTech Art conference? If so, please let me know and send to me asap at natasha at natasha.cc Credit of course will be given to you. 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 20:40:52 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:40:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:25:40 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > I am not sure this observation about randomness is tied to > frequentism, actually. You may be right... I took a quick peek at those papers. I think I could spend at least several days just trying to understand what they are going on about. :) They appear to be about some concepts in information theory, mainly, not about the more modest and understandable (at least to me) undertaking that is probability theory. For our purposes I think it's fair to say a sequence is random if there is and can be no discernible pattern, i.e., the sequence is random if the observations are *independent trials* in the usual sense. > How would you define randomness of a finite entity **objectively** > (independently of the observer) from a Bayesian point of view? If I understand your question, you are really wanting know how randomness is defined subjectively. Yes? Otherwise I don't know how to make sense of your question. I say this because although there exists an animal called objective bayesianism, it is still an epistemic theory of probability. As far as I know (and I could be wrong here) all bayesian views on randomness make use of a principle De Finetti called 'exchangeability'. 'Exchangeability' is the subjectivist correlate to the objectivist idea of 'independence'. Very roughly speaking, exchangeability is true when you view any subset of subjective observations from a larger set as exchangeable in the equations with any other subset, with no consequence. (That's probably a terrible summation, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. [1]). Exchangeable events are to subjectivists what independent/random events are to objectivists. Interesting to me is the fact that on the subjectivist (bayesian) view, events are never independent! Even perfectly idealized random coin-flips are *not* considered 'independent trials'. The concept of independence has almost no use in the subjective view. As de Finneti put it: "If I admit the possibility of modifying my probability judgment in response to observation of frequencies; it means that - by definition - my judgment of the probability of one trial is not independent of the outcomes of the others." This is also a weakness of the interpretation in my opinion. To my mind it is a bit absurd to think that coin-flips are not independent of one another. > This is an interesting topic... ;-) I think so too. :) -gts 1. Here is a more technical explanation of exchangeability: http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~cgates/PERSI/courses/stat_121/lectures/exch/ From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jan 16 20:43:31 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:43:31 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the future under control? In-Reply-To: References: <00b901c73890$8262af20$a7893cd1@pavilion> <3430.163.1.72.81.1168880517.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <649A55EE-95EC-488C-BF3E-E976154E8E3C@randallsquared.com> <60826.86.151.137.55.1168949973.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <51054.86.151.137.55.1168980211.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> BillK wrote: > I feel I should mention that my original post wasn't really advocating > more regulation. It was meant more on the lines of "Look - the > future's uncontrollable!". :) Sure. I never doubted your extropian credentials :-) > I was responding to Jef's complaint that the people and decision > makers weren't rational enough to solve the complex problems facing > us. No, and I doubt it is ever possible to achieve that. If we have entities around of power X, then they are likely to create problems of complexity X - but there are many such entities, so the total complexity of problems will be much higher than X. Meaning that decisionmakers better be distributed, collective solutions rather than just trying to introduce super-decisionmakers of complexity Y (who produce their own Y-problems). I guess I am a collectivist dynamist libertarian. > Mind you life might become interesting when nano factories and virus > manipulation become readily available and start to appear in the > garages and basements of every geek, angry teen and criminal. Yup. Fortunately competence appears to be inversely correlated with sentiment, so most will be pretty harmless. But just having more such risks around is going to make the world a lot more dangerous. And so far, if the War on Terror has shown us anything, we are bad at thinking in terms of security (c.f. all the stories in Crypto-gram). > Did you notice that spam hit a peak of 94% of all email in December? > > > Think how much fun they will have with nano factories. You just gave me a great business idea: anti-spam for nanofactured advertisements (they are blowing in the wind, creeping under your window, popping up in your breakfast cereal!). A mixture between environmental reclamation, recycling and antispam. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 16 21:06:51 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:06:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> Hi, > For our purposes I think it's fair to say a sequence is random if there is > and can be no discernible pattern, This is what Chaitin's definition of randomness (in the references) says. The problem is: Discernible by WHOM? Discernibility of patterns can only be defined objectively for infinitely large entities. Otherwise it can only be described relative to a specific finite Turing machine, i.e. subjectively. >i.e., the sequence is random if the > observations are *independent trials* in the usual sense. But "independent trials" is not a well-defined concept, so it can't really be used to define randomness in a rigorous way. > If I understand your question, you are really wanting know how randomness > is defined subjectively. Yes? Yeah... I can define "X is random to A to degree r, if A cannot compress X to less than a ratio r of its original size". So if A can't compress X at all, then X is random to degree 1 with respect to A If A can compress X close to zero size, then X is random to degree 0 with respect to A Then the Chaitin definition of randomness comes down to the observation that as the size of X goes to infinity, the property of "having degree of randomness 1" becomes independent of the observer A. Anyway, my question is exactly how this sort of randomness connects with the Bayesian interpretation of probability. I think that these results http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/calude94borel.html imply that Chaitin randomness implies exchangeability for infinite sequences. Also, they show that for finite sequences, almost all sequences are exchangeable (so in that sense, a 'randomly chosen' sequence is very likely to be exchangeable). However, exchangeability likely does NOT imply Chaitin randomness.... -- Ben G From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 16 21:12:10 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:12:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701161312h684c274ax56fc51a0b82390ff@mail.gmail.com> > I think that these results > > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/calude94borel.html > > imply that Chaitin randomness implies exchangeability for infinite > sequences. Also, they show that for finite sequences, almost all > sequences are exchangeable (so in that sense, a 'randomly chosen' > sequence is very likely to be exchangeable). Sorry: I meant in the last sentence that almost all RANDOM (i.e. incompressible) finite sequences are exchangeable [for any specific observer, and as sequence length gets long enough...] I don't know whether anyone has proved that, conversely, almost all finite exchangeable sequences are Chaitin-random. But I would bet that they are. For instance, tossing a coin according to the bits of the binary Champernowne sequence [scroll down in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champernowne_constant ] may lead to an exchangeable but not Chaitin random series. But, this sort of case is probably a rare one statistically... -- Ben G From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Jan 16 21:15:58 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:15:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox Message-ID: <21185672.347661168982158689.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >Damien Broderick wrote: >> On the other hand, this is perhaps an absurdly >> reductive and partial account. Yes. Anders wrote: >I think we have a feedback effect here. Duller and impulse impaired people >have a hard time doing well in society, so they congregate where living is >cheap enough. Such places are often cheap because of lack of productivity, >and having 'bad' people around retains their bad reputation, prevents >development and keeps them cheap. Living in this environment (even if you >are not dull) might predispose you towards religion as a coping mechanism. >Maybe there are pro-religion genes that correlate with antisocial traits >or traits that also makes you worse off, but even without them I think one >can get fundamentalism as a result of the bad encironment. Now, there is >probably a bit of feedback from fundamentalism in the form of >authoritarian upbringings, which might be harming particularly vulnerable >people and make them less able to do well, closing the cycle. As I argued >in my blog the fundamentalism/conservatism might also reduce outside >investments in the area. Add to this the formation and maintenance of >culture, where people often construct self-serving or maladaptive >explanations of why things are as they are and why they should remain so, >and you get a whole tangle of vicious cycles. Usually when Anders weighs in, I feel like I don't have to comment anymore, because someone more astute than I is at the helm. But you're all missing a fundamental point. First of all, in my original post, some of the problems were not good/evil innocent/criminal issues. Divorce becomes an issue in the debate because the Bible Belt claims to promote 'family values' while having the largest percentage of unwed mothers, single parents, etc., etc., etc. Poverty is definitely involved in this, but the breakdown in values is not confined to the poor or endangered. The proles (using Spike's word) are not the only ones to blame. It's the capitalists, too. In fact, it's everybody. Evil and unhappiness and self-delusion are equal opportunity predilictions. Otherwise, according to this line of thinking, the wealthy fundamentalists would have sterling morals and to a man, lead the way to making the world a better place. I ask you: do you know any who do? Buffet, Soros and the Gateses, with all their warts, are not fundamentalists. "Now I don't want to get off on a rant here..." [thank you Dennis Miller] but at least one of those biblical homilies is more accurate than the others. You remember the one about the rich man and the eye of the needle? Let me tell you a true story: I worked with a Born Again CEO for a few months on a project. This man was worth many hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars. He was as holy-roller and self-righteous as they come. When he wasn't running his companies, he was a minister in his own church. But his corporate morals were horrendous and had been for years. (And no, it wasn't Enron... but they must have gone to different schools together. ;-) ) What I learned about Born Agains working with him was this -- the very act of declaring oneself born again was the ultimate 'get out of jail free' card. It allowed you to be a miserable, greedy, bigoted, immoral wretch of a human being and still think that come the Rapture, you get a one-way ticket to the Almighty's side. Just by declaring Jesus as your personal savior. (I didn't take too kindly to his statement that me being a Jew meant I must be good with money, either.) Sound like any administration we know? It's my problem with Catholic confession -- A last confession before the last breath and it's alrighty with the Almighty. And I'm not so big on Yom Kippur, either. [You should see Hollywood on Yom Kippur. It's like a scene from 28 Days Later. Empty. They're all in temple, praying like mad for their sins. And there's a lot to pray about.] Never has a greater line of self-serving BS been foisted on humanity: believe in God and ask forgiveness and all is forgiven. Because the ability of humans to rationalize and justify their miserable behavior is endless. As history has proven. And that's also how these devout, yet scurrilous businesspeople (Enron, Wal-Mart, Exxon and the rest of the oil companies, Big Tobacco, I can keep going as long as you want me to...) (BTW, did you notice that all the notorious companies were based in the South?) can get up in the morning and look at themselves in the mirror. They're just collecting as many toys as possible until the Rapture. Because they can and their newfangled Christianity says 'Amen'. >From Time Magazine's cover story - Does God Want You To Be Rich? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448,00.html Disclaimer: I am not one of those 'jealous, resentful liberals' who are accused of wanting to tear down those they really wish they were like, in some Marxian-Pirahna feeding frenzy. (Nor am I anti-business. I just want business to be done with as few people hurt in the process as possible. Maybe I'm just afflicted with empathy. Or a fool.) I was raised in and amongst the Power Elite and continue to suck on the teat of the New Establishment. I know this world and its people from the inside. And it ain't pretty. No matter how devout they are. "Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." [Thanks again, Dennis.] PJ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 22:46:59 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:46:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Will trophy wives abuse the robots? Message-ID: An interesting recent article in the Telegraph [1]. It is so separate from my current reality that I don't know how to express an opinion on it. I only suspect that there may be some truths in the article. Which of course leads to the question (propagating forward from my previous message regarding robots to care for the elderly) whether the "elite" will be satisfied with robots as domestic help? When robots, which are presumably programmed to perform their function as good or better than a human could ever hope to do, are doing a "perfect" job, would people of the type mentioned in the article actually employ them? Or would they insist on semi-incompetent humans so as to raise their own sense of self-worth? [I.e. for people lacking sufficient imagination, diligence or motivation that would allow them to 'create' the primary goal in life is to 'bitch'? [2]] Or will there be a market for sub-optimal programs in robots that would allow their human "masters" to critique them? Although I am not sure but I think the story balances well with the "Suburban Housewives" and "Real Housewives of Orange County" shows on TV which are popular within some circles. We live in our own little reality -- but there are some out there that are *much* different. Robert 1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/01/16/ftwives116.xml 2. This is one of the trickier questions I have wrestled with over the last several years. Why should one seek to extend the longevity of individuals whose fundamental operating principle is "bitching"? Not inventing, not creating, not contributing, not adding to the aggregate human knowledge base, simply "bitching". So if there are suggestions as to how one enables extropic productivity without at the same time enabling the vampires I am open to suggestions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 16 23:07:03 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:07:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <50623.86.151.137.55.1168979783.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se > References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070116174334.0ec53350@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:36 PM 1/16/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: snip >I think we have a feedback effect here. Duller and impulse impaired people >have a hard time doing well in society, so they congregate where living is >cheap enough. Such places are often cheap because of lack of productivity, >and having 'bad' people around retains their bad reputation, prevents >development and keeps them cheap. Back in the late 60s, early 70s Jay Forrester explored this extensively in _Urban Dynamics_. (I can't find a copy for sale anywhere, I wonder if it is out of copyright?) As I recall (and we are talking decades) low cost housing was a feature of places with little employment (industry). The lack of balance between housing and job opportunities was called "social trapping." (Not sure if that was Forrester or someone else that used that term.) The critical thing about complex systems, social ones included, is that intuition is almost certain to make the wrong conclusion about how to fix a problem. People noted the horrible conditions in slums and decided to fix them by building public housing. We know how that turned out, and the failure was predicted by urban dynamics before a lot of that housing was built. >Living in this environment (even if you >are not dull) might predispose you towards religion as a coping mechanism. >Maybe there are pro-religion genes that correlate with antisocial traits >or traits that also makes you worse off, but even without them I think one >can get fundamentalism as a result of the bad encironment. Now, there is >probably a bit of feedback from fundamentalism in the form of >authoritarian upbringings, which might be harming particularly vulnerable >people and make them less able to do well, closing the cycle. As I argued >in my blog the fundamentalism/conservatism might also reduce outside >investments in the area. Add to this the formation and maintenance of >culture, where people often construct self-serving or maladaptive >explanations of why things are as they are and why they should remain so, >and you get a whole tangle of vicious cycles. > >How do we break them? It might be that there are no particular ways of >doing this and that we need to deal with all the issues (helping dull >become smarter, increase available money, improve security, encourage >tolerance and education, changes in rent economics etc). Or maybe it is >possible to set up positive feedback loops, like how an IKEA store >apparently got East Palo Alto to start moving forward again (brings in >money, the local council gets taxes to fund projects, other stores grow up >next to it, people get jobs, neighbourhoods become more secure etc). If >there was a way of seeding virtuous cycles reliably it would be great. As I recall, having lived next door in Palo Alto, as East Palo Alto became more secure the effect snowballed, drove up property values/rents and while some got jobs, most of the unproductive people were forced to move away to less expensive places. Keith From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 16 23:54:22 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:54:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] System dynamics (Urban dynamics) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070116174334.0ec53350@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <50623.86.151.137.55.1168979783.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se > <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070116184532.03b44540@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> "The model was, and is, very controversial, because it illustrates why many well-known urban policies are either ineffective or make urban problems worse. Further, the model shows that counter-intuitive policies -- i.e., policies that appear at first glance to be incorrect, often yield startlingly effective results. As an example, in the Urban Dynamics model, a policy of building low income housing creates a poverty trap that helps to stagnate a city, while a policy of tearing down low income housing creates jobs and a rising standard of living for all of the city's inhabitants." http://www.systemdynamics.org/DL-IntroSysDyn/origin.htm I might add that system dynamics has a lot of ad hoc assumptions in the models. Most of them are reasonable ones, such as economics, birth rated integrating to population levels and the like. But now that Anders got me to thinking about this, system dynamics lacks a foundation to the level of biology. Another application for evolutionary psychology! Keith From moulton at moulton.com Wed Jan 17 03:50:01 2007 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:50:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] System dynamics (Urban dynamics) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070116184532.03b44540@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <50623.86.151.137.55.1168979783.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se > <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070116184532.03b44540@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <1169005801.8617.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> There is an article about Jay Forrester here: http://www.strategy-business.com/press/article/05308 To access the article you will need to give them an email address and other info (I will not discuss the issue of accuracy of the info you provide) and then you can read the article. All of this reminds me of a class I took in very early 1980s in Systems Dynamics with the Dynamo Programming Language at San Jose State University. As I recall the Dynamo programs were run on a CDC CYBER which was kept around primarily for this course. My memory is that it had a hardware failure and could not be reasonably repaired just at the course was concluding (it was very old even in 1981). I think this was the last time that class was offered at SJSU. Fred From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 03:46:54 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:46:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Is the future under control? In-Reply-To: <60826.86.151.137.55.1168949973.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <00b901c73890$8262af20$a7893cd1@pavilion> <3430.163.1.72.81.1168880517.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <649A55EE-95EC-488C-BF3E-E976154E8E3C@randallsquared.com> <60826.86.151.137.55.1168949973.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <62c14240701161946s2b9ca6d1r25040b60e6469025@mail.gmail.com> On 1/16/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Then I happily go on reductio ad absurdum to see how much wilder things > they want to regulate. After all, we need to make sure that gardening is > done properly. And churches need to be government certified so they are > not crazy cults, nicht wahr? > > People who think everything should be regulated often get into a spin when > they realize that there might be other regulators out there who want to > regulate just as much as they do, but from completely different values. > That often drives them to flip to a very anti-regulation perspective. I had to laugh when I mentally replaced "regulate" with the definition from (1) & (2) (1) http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=regulate (2) http://www.slangsite.com/slang/R.html (use your browser's find for 'regulate') due most likely entirely to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulate_(song) From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jan 17 05:14:48 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:14:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <50623.86.151.137.55.1168979783.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200701170535.l0H5Zt94000889@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... > > I think we have a feedback effect here. Duller and impulse impaired people > have a hard time doing well in society, so they congregate where living is > cheap enough... There is a lot of stuff in this post, but I want to comment on only one dimension. I have traveled to places where living is cheap enough; the effect is astounding. Places that have been populated for a long time but where there is little industry show the long term effects of removing the ambitious and capable for generations, leaving the others to breed. The flip side of this coin I saw when giving a math lecture at the local high school. Those students seemed so much more intense, motivated and brighter than I recall my companions and myself ever being. Perhaps it occurs to the locals that unless they are unusually successful early in life, their choices are to live with their parents or move far out into the Taxifornia central valley. ... > > ... Or maybe it is > possible to set up positive feedback loops, like how an IKEA store > apparently got East Palo Alto to start moving forward ... If > there was a way of seeding virtuous cycles reliably it would be great. > Anders Sandberg, Interesting observation, Anders. After IKEA came in, property values in East Palo Alto soared. Many of the original residents sold out and moved away if they were owners before. Many of the renters were priced out of town. East Palo Alto underwent a most remarkable gentrification, something to be seen. Areas where it was dangerous to walk fifteen years ago are now upscale. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 16 22:38:33 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:38:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070116161919.03b48500@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:11 PM 1/16/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: >I just put up an extended version of my analysis on my blog, > >http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2007/01/criminal_because_of_god_or_godly_because_of_crime.html > >so you can actually see the GSS results and check them. I also added an >analysis of how fearful they were, and it supports my hypothesis that the >fundamentalism-crime correlation is caused by fundamentalism being a >coping mechanism towards a dangerous environment. Very interesting. I can get to just about the same conclusion starting from a slightly different perspective. Crime and lower economic status are closely associated. My expectation based on evolutionary psychology is that fundamentalism (as a kind of xenophobic religious meme) would be associated with lowered economic expectations. Taking a long term view, fundamentalism has been on the rise in the US starting about the time a lot of people fell out of the middle class due to corporate downsizing and jobs being shipped overseas. The rise of xenophobic memes is the result of psychological mechanisms leading to population support for wars. Or at least that is my thesis in the EP, memes and war paper. I don't know how to test this association as being causal in the modern world, though it probably was when we lived as hunter gatherers. Any thoughts on how to test it? Keith PS. The prediction out of this theory is that eventually (a generation?) people get used to the lower economic expectations and the fundamentalism memes should wane. If religion is as closely associated with wars as I think, then the falling away of people in the Church of England is to be expected after two generations of no wars and generally rising (if moderate) economic expectations. From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jan 17 03:11:14 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:11:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] System dynamics (World dynamics) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070116174334.0ec53350@pop.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> References: <50623.86.151.137.55.1168979783.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se > <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> <1403667.163801168841158098.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070115113140.02536da8@satx.rr.com> <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070116114301.021d3270@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070116185436.03ced188@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Limits to Growth was exceptionally influential, particularly in predicting a bleak future. I suspect the model was "hacked" to present a more dramatic and immediate impact. This invalidated the model in many people's minds. (I can't find my copy so am not able to put dates on it.) Friend of mine, Peter Vajk, got a copy of the FORTRAN code after a great deal of trouble. He was interested in working in the effects of non polluting SPS energy to see how that would affect the model. In going through the code he found a completely unexplained factor of 4 buried in the model that when it was taken out, (as I remember) pushed the crisis predictions considerably into the future. However, those decades have flown by and the time of crisis is much closer now. (Absent major technological advances of course.) It looks like energy, particularly oil, is going to be the most serious problem. There is a quite interesting analysis here: http://www.greatchange.org/ov-simmons,club_of_rome_revisted.pdf I suspect most of those on this list were not even born in 1972. The solution to the energy crisis at least has been around almost that long, solar power from space. There are two ways to accomplish that (rockets are just too inefficient.) Get the material from space, the moon or asteroids, or lift it with a mechanical space elevator. The space elevator is of course an early nanotechnology product, depending on carbon nanotubes. Still, my bet is we are in for some rough times in the next 15-20 years. Keith Henson From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jan 17 10:28:42 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:28:42 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] System dynamics (Urban dynamics) Message-ID: <60590.86.151.137.55.1169029722.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Keith Henson wrote: > "The model was, and is, very controversial, because it illustrates why > many > well-known urban policies are either ineffective or make urban problems > worse. Further, the model shows that counter-intuitive policies -- i.e., > policies that appear at first glance to be incorrect, often yield > startlingly effective results. As an example, in the Urban Dynamics model, > a policy of building low income housing creates a poverty trap that helps > to stagnate a city, while a policy of tearing down low income housing > creates jobs and a rising standard of living for all of the city's > inhabitants." We might get a test of this in Beijing, as large parts of low income housing in the city were torn down for the olympic city. > I might add that system dynamics has a lot of ad hoc assumptions in the > models. Most of them are reasonable ones, such as economics, birth rated > integrating to population levels and the like. To me it looks a lot like a model where all plausible variables and interactions are included, but the functional form of the interactions are empirically unknown and hence have to be approximated by even more plausible stuff. And if there is anything we have learned from dynamical systems and computational biology it is that they matter tremendously. The "counterintuitive dynamics" Forrester describes in http://web.mit.edu/sdg/www/D-4468-2.Counterintuitive.pdf seems to be fairly typical instability, but he cannot determine what causes it because the model is complex and somewhat arbitrary. That is why I love zero-parameter models. Too bad they are very hard to make :-) > But now that Anders got me to thinking about this, system dynamics lacks a > foundation to the level of biology. > > Another application for evolutionary psychology! I think one need to model agents in this kind of system, both individual humans but also the "agents" of parts of the cities. Many continous models give a far too smooth behavior and don't show creative emergence in the same way as when agents can select strategies and copy variants from each other. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jan 17 10:29:19 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:29:19 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox Message-ID: <60590.86.151.137.55.1169029759.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> pjmanney wrote: > Usually when Anders weighs in, I feel like I don't have to comment > anymore, because someone more astute than I is at the helm. But you're > all missing a fundamental point. Nice to know. (I also have a some people that regularly tend to overawe me with their thinking; I wonder if there is transitivity here, so that if A is smarter than B (according to B), and B is smarter than C (according to C) C will also think A smart. My guess is that it is not true in general) > What I learned about Born Agains working with him was this -- the very act > of declaring oneself born again was the ultimate 'get out of jail free' > card. It allowed you to be a miserable, greedy, bigoted, immoral wretch > of a human being and still think that come the Rapture, you get a one-way > ticket to the Almighty's side. I think you might be on to something. Turning to GSS again, the FORGIVE1,2 and 3 variables (forgive yourself, forgive others, forgiven by god) are very neatly correlated with fundamentalism. 88% fundies are always or almost always forgiven by god, while moderates and liberals have far more unforgiven (although 74% of respondents were always forgiven). Good correlations everywhere. Unfortunately ARREST and TICKET only go to 87, and forgiveness is in the 98n sample, so I can't correlate them! Argh! But if you are right we should see a correlation here? However, I don't think this would explain all the trouble in fundieland. My previous results suggest that fundies on average are not the criminals but the victims. If they have a malign influence it might rather be cultural by spreading the meme that actions do not matter if forgiveness is sought. Maybe there is a lot more external locus of control in the bible belt? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jan 17 10:30:03 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:30:03 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Will trophy wives abuse the robots? Message-ID: <60590.86.151.137.55.1169029803.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: > When robots, which are presumably programmed to perform their function as > good or better than a human could ever hope to do, are doing a "perfect" > job, would people of the type mentioned in the article actually employ > them? Or would they insist on semi-incompetent humans so as to raise > their > own sense of self-worth? Given my understanding of human psychology, self-worth is worth much more than a perfectly cleaned house or a delicious three-course meal. If there is a choice between DomoBot for $100 a month and a butler at $120,000 a month, the butler is clearly the thing to get. He might of course use DomoBots, but it is the human (expensive) touch that matters. I'm just sceptical of the possibility of perfection in housework. > 2. This is one of the trickier questions I have wrestled with over the > last > several years. Why should one seek to extend the longevity of individuals > whose fundamental operating principle is "bitching"? Not inventing, not > creating, not contributing, not adding to the aggregate human knowledge > base, simply "bitching". So if there are suggestions as to how one > enables > extropic productivity without at the same time enabling the vampires I am > open to suggestions. Maybe it is not worth it? Inventing a reward system that rewards extropic behavior more than entropic behavior doesn't seem impossible (current markets to it to some extent), but making it just reward the former and not the latter may be very hard. As long as there are enough safeguards preventing parasitism from becoming overwhelming or affecting the extropic parts unduly it might simply be enough to let the free riders ride along. Maybe that is the ultimate revenge: being rich enough to ignore the vampires. Since their self-worth comes from causing a reaction from their lifegiver this would be the worst possible outcome for them. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jan 17 11:25:21 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:25:21 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <200701170535.l0H5Zt94000889@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701170535.l0H5Zt94000889@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <60742.86.151.137.55.1169033121.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > There is a lot of stuff in this post, but I want to comment on only one > dimension. I have traveled to places where living is cheap enough; the > effect is astounding. Places that have been populated for a long time but > where there is little industry show the long term effects of removing the > ambitious and capable for generations, leaving the others to breed. I don't think the genetic selection effect is that strong, but I really fear the cultural selection effect. I note that while mobility increases with socioeconomic class (GSS again), even in the lowest stratum 23% now live in a different state from the one they lived in when they were 16. Only half of the people at the bottom end live in the same city as they grew up. So it doesn't seem that we have an inert remnant staying in place, slowly losing the bright ones. But there might be an inert culture, with people arriving and leaving yet adopting this culture limiting the growth potential of the place. While other places develop a vibrant culture, rapidly attracting the creative and ambitious. > The flip side of this coin I saw when giving a math lecture at the local > high school. Those students seemed so much more intense, motivated and > brighter than I recall my companions and myself ever being. Perhaps it > occurs to the locals that unless they are unusually successful early in > life, their choices are to live with their parents or move far out into > the > Taxifornia central valley. Interesting. I wonder how that has percolated into teenage culture? On the other hand, you are a pretty good lecturer too, so you might have a cause of bias there. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jan 17 15:35:56 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:35:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] System dynamics (Urban dynamics) In-Reply-To: <60590.86.151.137.55.1169029722.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070117101252.03df1710@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:28 AM 1/17/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: >Keith Henson wrote: > > "The model was, and is, very controversial, because it illustrates why > > many > > well-known urban policies are either ineffective or make urban problems > > worse. Further, the model shows that counter-intuitive policies -- i.e., > > policies that appear at first glance to be incorrect, often yield > > startlingly effective results. As an example, in the Urban Dynamics model, > > a policy of building low income housing creates a poverty trap that helps > > to stagnate a city, while a policy of tearing down low income housing > > creates jobs and a rising standard of living for all of the city's > > inhabitants." > >We might get a test of this in Beijing, as large parts of low income >housing in the city were torn down for the olympic city. It's almost dogma now. Virtually all of the massive public housing has been torn down. Where they do build new it is in scattered units all over the city. > > I might add that system dynamics has a lot of ad hoc assumptions in the > > models. Most of them are reasonable ones, such as economics, birth rated > > integrating to population levels and the like. > >To me it looks a lot like a model where all plausible variables and >interactions are included, but the functional form of the interactions are >empirically unknown and hence have to be approximated by even more >plausible stuff. True. >And if there is anything we have learned from dynamical >systems and computational biology it is that they matter tremendously. Most of them were investigated and they didn't have a lot of effect on the model performance for small changes in the shapes of the interaction curves. >The >"counterintuitive dynamics" Forrester describes in >http://web.mit.edu/sdg/www/D-4468-2.Counterintuitive.pdf >seems to be fairly typical instability, but he cannot determine what >causes it because the model is complex and somewhat arbitrary. > >That is why I love zero-parameter models. Too bad they are very hard to >make :-) > > > But now that Anders got me to thinking about this, system dynamics lacks a > > foundation to the level of biology. > > > > Another application for evolutionary psychology! > >I think one need to model agents in this kind of system, both individual >humans but also the "agents" of parts of the cities. Many continous models >give a far too smooth behavior and don't show creative emergence in the >same way as when agents can select strategies and copy variants from each >other. That happens on two widely divergent time scales with genes and memes as agents. Even genes like lactase take thousands of years to spread into a population where memes can spread into a population on a scale of weeks (the Danish Cartoon riots for example). My EP theory of war amplifies up a slight change in the average gain of xenophobic memes to switching an entire population into supporting a war. Certainly emergence at work. Keith From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 15:21:52 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:21:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:06:51 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: I've been thinking a bit about your interesting question: >> For our purposes I think it's fair to say a sequence is random if there >> is and can be no discernible pattern > > This is what Chaitin's definition of randomness (in the references) says. > > The problem is: Discernible by WHOM? Discernibility of patterns can > only be defined objectively for infinitely large entities. Our answer may depend on our philosophy of mathematics. According to mathematical constructivists [1], mathematical objects can be said to exist only if some procedure can be specified by which the object may be constructed. In the case of infinite sequences, this means there must exist some rule for determining the next digit in the sequence. We can think and speak intelligibly about the infinite decimal expansion of pi, for example, because although we are mere finite mortals incapable of discerning the entire infinite sequence, a rule can nevertheless be laid down by us for determining the next digit no matter how far along we are in it. But can we likewise infer the existence of infinite random sequences (Chaitin-random or otherwise) in the same way? The answer seems to be "maybe not". You've probably already anticipated the problem: as your sources and mine agree, a sequence is random if no betting system can be specified that would allow a better to make money beyond what would be expected by chance alone; that is, it is random if it contains no discernible (predictable) patterns. To prove under constructivism that an infinite random sequence exists that meets this criterion, we need somehow to formulate a rule for determining its successive digits. But any such rule would amount to a successful gambling system and thus prove the sequence to be non-random! -gts 1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-constructive/ From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 16:08:32 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:08:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60701170808m7bb750f4xb97f682eae9244ac@mail.gmail.com> On 1/17/07, gts wrote: To prove under constructivism that an infinite random sequence > exists that meets this criterion, we need somehow to formulate a rule for > determining its successive digits. But any such rule would amount to a > successful gambling system and thus prove the sequence to be non-random! > ### A rule enumerating all infinite sequences would not be a successful gambling system (unless I am missing something here) but would still specify the successive digits for every possible number. Rafal From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 16:34:51 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:34:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60701170834p33a5038fm24f2c7e729d5fdbf@mail.gmail.com> On 1/16/07, gts wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:44:23 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > > ### I would see it this way: The meaning of "random" is "obeying the > > principle of indifference, where the sample space is unambiguously > > described". If the sample space is exactly two outcomes, then each one > > must occur 50% of the time, or else the coin is weighted, and the > > tosses are not quite random anymore. > > Hmm, I think this is not at all what is or should be the definition of > "random". ### Yeah, I agree, I was to some extent being rhetorical :) -------------- > > As the word is normally defined, a series of tosses of an unfair coin > still result in a completely random sequence! How can you suggest > otherwise? ### Now, is that true? Let's say you have an unfair coin, which 99% of the time drops heads and only 1 % tails. Would you call the results of tossing it a "completely random sequence"? What if the coin is only slightly unfair, dropping 50.0001 % heads? Is the resulting sequence random? Note that any deviation from the principle of indifference allows a player who knows about it to make arbitrarily large amounts of money betting on the outcomes, given sufficiently long but finite series of bets. The PI is a corollary of the Martin-Lof concept of randomness. The PI is not in the definition of randomness, but any statistically significant deviations from it in a sequence of events let you conclude the events are not fully random. Rafal From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 16:45:21 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:45:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60701170808m7bb750f4xb97f682eae9244ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701170808m7bb750f4xb97f682eae9244ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:08:32 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### A rule enumerating all infinite sequences would not be a > successful gambling system (unless I am missing something here) but > would still specify the successive digits for every possible number. If the rule specified every digit in any sequence then I think it would be a successful gambling system on that sequence. Or to put it another way, the sequence would be at most pseudo-random. I think a genuinely random sequence is one in which the next digit is both 1) unpredictable and 2) undetermined. Can genuinely random sequences exist? This subject reminds me of another discussion we had here a few years ago, in which I offered up "HotBits" as a possible example of genuine random numbers: "HotBits are generated by timing successive pairs of radioactive decays detected by a Geiger-Muller tube interfaced to a computer." http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/ -gts From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 16:55:35 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:55:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60701170855i2bd7026age2587f253caabc5c@mail.gmail.com> On 1/16/07, gts wrote: > > As de Finneti put it: > > "If I admit the possibility of modifying my probability judgment in > response to observation of frequencies; it means that - by definition - my > judgment of the probability of one trial is not independent of the > outcomes of the others." > > This is also a weakness of the interpretation in my opinion. To my mind it > is a bit absurd to think that coin-flips are not independent of one > another. ### But what do you mean by "independent"? Aren't we going here in some sort of infinite linguistic/conceptual regress, shifting the buck from "probability" to "randomness" to "independence" :) To me it's clear that coin flips are not really independent, since by observing them you may learn how to predict future flips of the same coin. Rafal From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 17:08:36 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:08:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60701170834p33a5038fm24f2c7e729d5fdbf@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701170834p33a5038fm24f2c7e729d5fdbf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:34:51 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Now, is that true? Let's say you have an unfair coin, which 99% of > the time drops heads and only 1 % tails. Would you call the results > of tossing it a "completely random sequence"? Yes, because the tosses are independent and no gambling system could be devised that would result in a greater than 99% win rate. > What if the coin is only slightly unfair, dropping 50.0001 % heads? Is > the resulting sequence > random? Yes. Same argument. > Note that any deviation from the principle of indifference allows a > player who knows about it to make arbitrarily large amounts of money > betting on the outcomes But that is not what the probability theorists mean by "gambling system". From http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/impossibility-of-a-gambling-system-principle.php: "The key condition is that the limiting frequency of the characteristic concerned should be the same for all partial sequences we could select from the collective, provided only that whether a given term in the collective is taken into a partial sequence is independent of whether that term manifests the characteristic concerned." Here is how that sentence translates to a simple unfair coin-flip example in which heads is highly favored: "The key condition for satisfying the condition of randomness is that the % heads is the same for all sub-sequences selected as favorable by the supposed betting system as it is for the entire sequence, provided that the gambling system doesn't include the unfair luxury of knowing in advance which sub-sequences contain a greater than average % of heads." You aren't using a gambling system when you're just playing the averages. Gambling systems are attempts to *beat* the averages. Make sense? -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 17:48:54 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:48:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701161312h684c274ax56fc51a0b82390ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161312h684c274ax56fc51a0b82390ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I have a possible philosophical problem with the idea that non-compressibility is a true measure of randomness, as seems to be an assumption in Chaitin-randomness. Every gambler knows that some very unlikely-looking sub-sequences can appear in any long random sequence. Flip a coin a thousand times, for example, and there is a good chance you'll see some extraordinarily long runs of heads and/or tails, along with other very non-random looking sub-sequences. If I understand the compressibility principle correctly (and I very well may not!) those apparently non-random sub-sequences are compressible and so would count against the sequence in any compressibility measure of its randomness. But of course we all know those remarkable sub-sequences are to be expected even if they cannot be predicted. Their absence in an extremely non-compressible and thus supposedly extremely random sequence might even be cause for suspicion that the sequence was artificially constructed and thus in some sense not truly random at all. To put this another way: although entropy is associated with randomness, I question whether it is a good measure of it. -gts From ben at goertzel.org Wed Jan 17 18:11:08 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:11:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161312h684c274ax56fc51a0b82390ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701171011v4280eed4v30701fa8517885a0@mail.gmail.com> > To put this another way: although entropy is associated with randomness, I > question whether it is a good measure of it. Well, the results I posted seem to imply that: In almost all finite incompressible seqences of length N, almost all subsequences of length K (K significantly less than N) are almost equally likely. This is a pretty strong relationship between Chaitin randomness and exchangeability Does it address the point you mentioned? ben From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 18:01:57 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:01:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60701170855i2bd7026age2587f253caabc5c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701170855i2bd7026age2587f253caabc5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:55:35 -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > To me it's clear that coin flips are not really independent, since by > observing them you may learn how to predict future flips of the same > coin. But the actual *result* of each coin-flip is still independent of the results of the other flips, yes? According to subjectivists like de Finneti, my sentence above is complete nonsense. :) -gts From scerir at libero.it Wed Jan 17 19:21:15 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:21:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? References: <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com><3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com><3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com><3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com><7641ddc60701170808m7bb750f4xb97f682eae9244ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000d01c73a6c$a9da8d60$98be1f97@archimede> gts: > I think a genuinely random sequence > is one in which the next digit is both > 1) unpredictable and 2) undetermined. I would say uncomputable. Let us suppose a 'random' sequence would be computable. In this case, the computation(s) involved would produce definite number(s) associated with definite outcome(s), that is to say definite element(s) of physical reality. We know that the assumption of value definiteness often results in a sharp contradiction (at least when the quantic nature of physical reality becomes important). One is forced to conclude (in that case) that the assumption of computability has to be given up. [Calude, Svozil] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611029 [Quantis machine] http://www.idquantique.com/ http://www.idquantique.com/products/quantis.htm [Calude] www.idquantique.com/products/files/quantis-mcu04.pdf From benboc at lineone.net Wed Jan 17 19:23:42 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:23:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AE77BE.4080005@lineone.net> pjmanney wrote: > > I had an epiphany the other night. > If I'm wrong, do you have a better explanation for what shall > hitherto be known as The Bible Belt Paradox? It shall NOT henceforth be known as The Bible Belt Paradox! Oops! Damn. ben zaiboc From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 19:49:30 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:49:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <20070113165623.35809.qmail@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0701130908k7fb885fdg48ab1affd18e3676@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60701170834p33a5038fm24f2c7e729d5fdbf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Rafal, some clarification... >> ### Now, is that true? Let's say you have an unfair coin, which 99% of >> the time drops heads and only 1 % tails. Would you call the results >> of tossing it a "completely random sequence"? I replied: > Yes, because the tosses are independent and no gambling system could be > devised that would result in a greater than 99% win rate. I think I should qualify my reply... Yes, I would call it a completely random sequence, because the tosses are independent and no gambling system could be devised that would result in a greater than 99% win rate; that is, it completely satisfies the conditions of randomness and so it is completely random. But I realize now that I have been sloppy; I should be clear that "completely random sequence" does not mean the same thing as "maximally disordered sequence", which I think now is what you thought I meant. You're right that a 99% weighted coin would generate a less disordered sequence (and in that sense might be said to be "less random"), even I am also right to say the sequence is still "completely random" in the sense that it meets the principle of excluded gambling systems. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 20:12:03 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:12:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701171011v4280eed4v30701fa8517885a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161312h684c274ax56fc51a0b82390ff@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701171011v4280eed4v30701fa8517885a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:11:08 -0500, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > Does it address the point you mentioned? Seems to, yes, thx. Probably I have the wrong idea of how compressibility actually works. -gts From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 22:03:29 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:03:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161312h684c274ax56fc51a0b82390ff@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701171011v4280eed4v30701fa8517885a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An education with respect to the points under discussion may be useful. > Does it address the point you mentioned? Probably not. One has to determine whether or not the people at risk are moved out of harms way. Moving people to one side or another is probably only a partial solution (as compared with preventing the explosion entirely). Seems to, yes, thx. Probably I have the wrong idea of how compressibility > actually works. "Square of the distance" laws would seem to be a good example to cite here. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 22:20:04 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:20:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701171011v4280eed4v30701fa8517885a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60701151544t522279a1jc174fc1148ae3185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701160923t48921844wbc8cc0e7c74f29@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161025v6f09c36y34033656b5686185@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161306g3769ebd8h44a77773a5c350c5@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701161312h684c274ax56fc51a0b82390ff@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0701171011v4280eed4v30701fa8517885a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Another pesky Principle of Indifference problem... A train leaves at noon to travel a distance of 300km. It travels at a constant speed of between 100km/h and 300km/h. What is the probability that it arrives before 2pm? At least two solutions with different answers: 1. For the train to arrive before 2pm, its velocity must be greater than or equal to 150km/h. By the principle of indifference, all velocities between 100 and 300 km/h are equally likely. The probability of it being greater than or equal to 150km/h such that the train arrives before 2pm is therefore 3/4. 2. The train must arrive between 1pm and 3pm. 2pm is half way between these two. By the principle of indifference, the train is as likely to arrive before 2pm as after 2pm. So the probability must be 1/2. What would Scooby Do? -gts From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 01:14:55 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:14:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <690733.37621.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > Another pesky Principle of Indifference problem... > > A train leaves at noon to travel a distance of > 300km. It travels at a > constant speed of between 100km/h and 300km/h. What > is the probability > that it arrives before 2pm? > > At least two solutions with different answers: > > 1. For the train to arrive before 2pm, its velocity > must be greater than > or equal to 150km/h. By the principle of > indifference, all velocities > between 100 and 300 km/h are equally likely. The > probability of it being > greater than or equal to 150km/h such that the train > arrives before 2pm is > therefore 3/4. > > 2. The train must arrive between 1pm and 3pm. 2pm is > half way between > these two. By the principle of indifference, the > train is as likely to > arrive before 2pm as after 2pm. So the probability > must be 1/2. > > What would Scooby Do? I don't know what Scooby would do but I have a third solution. Unlike some problems involving the PoI, this one is actually a physics problem. Whereas I am unaware of any experimental verification of PoI in terms of time or space, I do know that there is a verifiable principle in statistical thermodynamics that seems somewhat similar to PoI only it is defined objectively instead of epistemologically. This principle is called Boltzman's equipartition theorem. This theorem is only defined for classical systems but as a train is a classical system, it should apply. Briefly the theorem states that the energy of a system will divide itself equally amongst all possible degrees of freedom of the system. Since one can describe the velocity of a train as the kinetic energy of the train, one can say that the range of allowed velocities of the train (100km/hr to 300km/hr) can be described as degrees of freedom of the kinetic energy of the system. Thus we could theoretically say that all possible kinetic energies of the train between 1/2 mass * (lowest velocity)^2 and 1/2 mass * (upper velocity) should be equally probable. We further make the assumption that the train's mass is constant throughout the trip although realistically it would be burning fuel and getting lighter throughout the trip. Since it is constant, we can eliminate mass from the kinetic energy expression leaving us with units of (km/hr)^2. When we do this we find out that given the boundary conditions of the problem, the lowest possible (mass reduced) energy the train can have is (100 km/hr)^2 and the highest energy is (300 km/hr)^2. This gives us a range of energies between 10,000 (km/hr)^2 and 90,000 (km/hr)^2, where any energy in the range is equally likely. In order to arrive before 2pm the least amount of kinetic energy the train can have is 22,500 (km/hr)^2. To determine a probability one has merely to look at what proportion of possible kinetic energies allow the train to arrive before 2pm versus the total range. Thus the probability that the train will arrive at or before 2pm is P(<=pm) = (90,000 - 22,500)/(90,000 - 10,000) = 0.84375 which is different from either one of the answers given above. So does this help? *wicked grin* Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." -Abraham Lincoln ____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 18 02:02:46 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:02:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: gts wrote: > A train leaves at noon to travel a distance of 300km. It > travels at a constant speed of between 100km/h and 300km/h. > What is the probability that it arrives before 2pm? > > At least two solutions with different answers: > > 1. For the train to arrive before 2pm, its velocity must be > greater than or equal to 150km/h. By the principle of > indifference, all velocities between 100 and 300 km/h are > equally likely. The probability of it being greater than or > equal to 150km/h such that the train arrives before 2pm is > therefore 3/4. > > 2. The train must arrive between 1pm and 3pm. 2pm is half way > between these two. By the principle of indifference, the > train is as likely to arrive before 2pm as after 2pm. So the > probability must be 1/2. Gordon, this is the same as the problem of the boxes. With the box, your problem was underspecified because it didn't specify which variable was to be considered (length, area, or volume.) With the train, your problem is underspecified because you don't specify what mechanism is to be considered for changing the speed of the train (set the speed to a number between 100 and 300, or alternatively, set the number of minutes to be offset (and then calculate the resulting speed.) The Principle of Indifference is correct and beautiful in its elegance. But it doesn't claim to work across multiple spaces of possible states. Maybe it would help you to remember that there's only a single TRUE speed of the train. The puzzle here is not to try to give a range of true speeds, but rather to give a range of uncertainty relative to a specified subjective agent. You haven't specified the subjective agent's viewpoint sufficiently, so you have ambiguity in your problem. In theory, you could keep thinking up additional dimensions to this problem, equally unspecified, but being 3D beings our imagination tends to fail before we get that far. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 18 02:12:47 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:12:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <690733.37621.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The Avantguardian > I don't know what Scooby would do but I have a third > solution. Unlike some problems involving the PoI, this one is > actually a physics problem. Whereas I am unaware of any > experimental verification of PoI in terms of time or space, I > do know that there is a verifiable principle in statistical > thermodynamics that seems somewhat similar to PoI only it is > defined objectively instead of epistemologically. This > principle is called Boltzman's equipartition theorem. > This theorem is only defined for classical systems but as a > train is a classical system, it should apply. > In order to arrive before 2pm the least amount of kinetic > energy the train can have is 22,500 (km/hr)^2. > To determine a probability one has merely to look at what > proportion of possible kinetic energies allow the train to > arrive before 2pm versus the total range. > Thus the probability that the train will arrive at or before > 2pm is P(<=pm) = (90,000 - 22,500)/(90,000 - > 10,000) = 0.84375 which is different from either one of the > answers given above. > > So does this help? *wicked grin* Thanks Stuart for helping to make my point that there's no end to the variety of dimensions that could be applied to this ambiguously specified problem. People get stuck on it because they think of probability as distribution of "true" values rather probability as distribution of uncertainty. - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 18 03:38:00 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:38:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <45AE77BE.4080005@lineone.net> Message-ID: <200701180358.l0I3w1gt004757@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > pjmanney wrote: > > > > > I had an epiphany the other night. > > > If I'm wrong, do you have a better explanation for what shall > > hitherto be known as The Bible Belt Paradox? Hmmm, bible belt paradox. Thru this discussion I have not seen any mention that the bible is not a particularly good guide to ethics. There is some really horrifying stuff in there, just awful. Teaching by counterexample perhaps? But even if we get past that, the bible is very incomplete as a guide to ethical behavior. We often associate strict religious observance with strict sexual abstinence for instance. But if you study the bible, in no place therein does it specifically forbid an unmarried couple from carnal pleasures. It really doesn't. The apostle Paul mentions that the gentile converts should be urged to abstain from fornication, but nowhere does he actually define it. This apparent omission gave the protestant missionaries to some cultures severe migraines. They had to differentiate themselves from the catholic missionaries via the principle of sola scriptura, which is to say rules of ethics can only come from the bible, not from the pope or anything else. The natural first question: where in your holy book does it forbid our particular favorite form of entertainment? Answer: well, actually it doesn't. The prophet David had hundreds of wives and even more concubines. What is a concubine? Clearly old Dave was entertaining them in a cheerfully carnal fashion, for the holy book does say he had children with them. But they were specifically differentiated from his wives, soooo... The bible belt people even have a name for shacking up: living in sin. What sin? Why couldn't the sin-living-in-er simply claim that this housemate* is her concubine, and therefore she is at least as sinless as the prophet David, whose supposed writings make up a large part of the old testament including the Psalms and the Proverbs. That guy whose name escapes me at the moment (Hoerkheimer Christ's twin brother, with all the songs written about him) casually mentioned slavery several times. Never did he suggest that owning another human just might be a SIN or anything. The old testament has plenty of examples of the children of god committing mass murder, genocide actually, for the sin of unbelief. It is written that they were acting under orders from god. Damn. Before I can refer to social ills in the south as the bible belt paradox, I would need to see something that is actually paradoxical. spike *What would he be called? Perhaps the male counterpart to a concubine is a concubino or something. I propose a naming contest. From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 18 03:49:49 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:49:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <60742.86.151.137.55.1169033121.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200701180400.l0I40Yj8018831@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > Interesting. I wonder how that has percolated into teenage culture? On the > other hand, you are a pretty good lecturer too, so you might have a cause > of bias there. > > -- > Anders Sandberg, Anders, for *you* to say that *I* am a pretty good lecturer is far too kind, thanks. I was speaking straight from the heart with them, about all the cool powers one gets from studying a particular field of mathematics: calculus. That one area opens so many doors, admits one into the grokminati, provides a whole new bag of tricks, a deep one. The notion that modern teenagers are disconnected or not able to concentrate doesn't ring true to my own experience. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 18 04:25:32 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:25:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century In-Reply-To: <200701180358.l0I3w1gt004757@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <45AE77BE.4080005@lineone.net> <200701180358.l0I3w1gt004757@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070117221829.023aee80@satx.rr.com> Wholly dog in kennel, what a creepy specimen that Bill McKibben turns out to be! I've previously commented with well-deserved scorn on his ranting book ENOUGH, but seeing this tormented looking Savonarola with his scraped face on TV really put me off my tucker. (That's Aussie for yummy ham, rice and salad.) I know judging a human by his phizz is not the best policy, but I'd rather have Mez Naam, weird haircut and all, chatting in my living room any night. Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 18 04:32:13 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:32:13 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <200701180358.l0I3w1gt004757@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike wrote: >> pjmanney wrote: >> >> >>> I had an epiphany the other night. >>> >>> If I'm wrong, do you have a better explanation for what shall >>> hitherto be known as The Bible Belt Paradox? > > > Hmmm, bible belt paradox. > > Thru this discussion I have not seen any mention that the > bible is not a particularly good guide to ethics. There is > some really horrifying stuff in there, just awful. Teaching > by counterexample perhaps? But even if we get past that, the > bible is very incomplete as a guide to ethical behavior. In my opinion, the worst consequence of biblical ethics is the teaching that one must surrender one's ethical judgment to a higher power, of course by proxy via the priesthood. IMNSHO, it's obvious that moral judgment MUST come from the self and radiate outward in an expanding sphere of awareness of shared values (that work over increasing scope, etc., etc.) Most of the religious believers with whom I've discussed morality have all replied along the lines of "how can you have morality without a higher power?" I could respond with "How do you drive to work in the morning if you take your hands off the wheel?", but it's already clear there isn't enough shared context for effective discussion. I'm actually optimistic that enlightenment is continually taking root, but disappointed that US fundamentalists will be among the last to join the community of the aware and empowered. Hey, has anyone heard the parable of the devout man and the Edsel that could follow the path of righteousness without steering? No, I haven't either. - Jef From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 04:13:14 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:13:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <287002.25369.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jef Allbright wrote: > Thanks Stuart for helping to make my point that > there's no end to the > variety of dimensions that could be applied to this > ambiguously > specified problem. You are welcome, Jef. One of the funnier quirks of this list is that there seems to be no limit to how finely its participants can split hairs. It would make Zeno proud. ;) > People get stuck on it because they think of > probability as distribution > of "true" values rather probability as distribution > of uncertainty. Yes, I agree. It's like asking, "What is the batting average of a baseball player that has never been at bat before?" A frequentist would say, "He doesn't have one yet." A Bayesian would say, ".500". Within their respective philosophies, both are correct. In the end, probability is no more than a ham-handed attempt to manage uncertainty and ignorance of the future. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." -Abraham Lincoln ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 05:33:34 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:33:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? Message-ID: <340632.92061.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> I happened upon an interesting and potentially useful site: http://www.quantcast.com/extropy.org Unfortunately some of its statistics seem somewhat doubtful. Most notably that visitors to the ExI website are predominantly African American. If it is true, then move over NAACP, theres a new org in town. :) But if it is indeed true, how come there seem to be so few on the list? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." -Abraham Lincoln ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 06:36:42 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:36:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070117221829.023aee80@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <144050.19768.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> I only managed to catch a little of the show. Was McKibben the one who was wearing really dark Matrix style sunglasses the whole time he was being interviewed? There does seem to be somethng creepy about wearing really dark sunglasses indoors but maybe he suffers from mild autism, migraines (camera lighting can be rather intense), or was incredibly stoned at the time. :) --- Damien Broderick wrote: > Wholly dog in kennel, what a creepy specimen that > Bill McKibben turns > out to be! I've previously commented with > well-deserved scorn on his > ranting book ENOUGH, but seeing this tormented > looking Savonarola > with his scraped face on TV really put me off my > tucker. (That's > Aussie for yummy ham, rice and salad.) I know > judging a human by his > phizz is not the best policy, but I'd rather have > Mez Naam, weird > haircut and all, chatting in my living room any > night. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > 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 "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." -Abraham Lincoln ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 18 07:15:25 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:15:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century In-Reply-To: <144050.19768.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070117221829.023aee80@satx.rr.com> <144050.19768.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070118011101.0230f4d8@satx.rr.com> At 10:36 PM 1/17/2007 -0800, Avant wrote: >I only managed to catch a little of the show. Was >McKibben the one who was wearing really dark Matrix >style sunglasses the whole time he was being >interviewed? There does seem to be somethng creepy >about wearing really dark sunglasses indoors Nope, that was the wearables pioneer Steve Mann, who also looks a tad weird for that reason. His shades hide a complex HUD system. McKibben looked like some unholy genetic hybrid of a haut uber Kraut and a concentration camp inmate. Damien Broderick From neuattitude at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 02:19:36 2007 From: neuattitude at yahoo.com (N A) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:19:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox Message-ID: <653629.47271.qm@web62107.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Thanks to Anders for a most thought provoking piece. What it made me realize perhaps the #1 reason for luddism: though singles can more readily cope, the glue holding families together is often rather weak; no wonder so many reject the future in favor of the past. They fear the dislocation of the coming decades will dissolve their pair bonds, families. To be a champion of the obvious, religion can be seen as a necessary fiction helping couples and families cope with lack of meaning and continuous dislocation. --------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Jan 12 06:52:13 2007 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:52:13 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fw: [forteana] 23 Skidoo: Goodbye Robert Anton Wilson Message-ID: <999048.1168584734062.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- > >23 Skidoo: Goodbye Robert Anton Wilson > >A genius, wonderful writer, and friend has died. > >For more...please read: > >http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/23-skidoo-raw/ > >Posted by Loren Coleman - 1-11-2007 Terry W. Colvin Sierra Vista, Arizona From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 17:33:51 2007 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:33:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Bible Belt Paradox In-Reply-To: <1567.163.1.72.81.1168967510.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <249166.6667.qm@web51603.mail.yahoo.com> Anders, this is really interesting. BTW, living in the midwest (a region worse in some ways than the Bible Belt) for 20 years, it gradually became apparent crime reaches even into churches, many crooked charities. exist as well. Anders Sandberg wrote: I just put up an extended version of my analysis on my blog, http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2007/01/criminal_because_of_god_or_godly_because_of_crime.html so you can actually see the GSS results and check them. I also added an analysis of how fearful they were, and it supports my hypothesis that the fundamentalism-crime correlation is caused by fundamentalism being a coping mechanism towards a dangerous environment. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 09:34:15 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:34:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <340632.92061.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> References: <340632.92061.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 1/18/07, The Avantguardian wrote: > I happened upon an interesting and potentially useful > site: > > http://www.quantcast.com/extropy.org > > Unfortunately some of its statistics seem somewhat > doubtful. Most notably that visitors to the ExI > website are predominantly African American. If it is > true, then move over NAACP, theres a new org in town. > :) But if it is indeed true, how come there seem to be > so few on the list? > Don't worry. It's not true. :) Most of their stats are rubbish at present. They are a very new, small startup who want to create a new tool for ad agencies. They have intially generated pretty random stats for millions of sites. The idea is that site owners will be horrified at the wrong stats published about their site and do the free signup to get quantcast's tracking (sorry, 'analytical') javascript installed on every page on their site. The business plan of many startups these days seems to be - throw something together, create a bit of noise, then get bought out by Google and retire. :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 10:02:37 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:02:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070118011101.0230f4d8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070117221829.023aee80@satx.rr.com> <144050.19768.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118011101.0230f4d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/18/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > Nope, that was the wearables pioneer Steve Mann, who also looks a tad > weird for that reason. His shades hide a complex HUD system. McKibben > looked like some unholy genetic hybrid of a haut uber Kraut and a > concentration camp inmate. > You can find photos of almost anybody on the net. I was intending to post a link here to some photos of Damien, but the Playboy photo-shoot samples were too embarrassing. ;) BillK From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 11:35:52 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:35:52 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070117221829.023aee80@satx.rr.com> <144050.19768.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118011101.0230f4d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I caught most of the show and thought the ideas were presented well with a fair amount of give-and-take. I particularly enojoyed the discussion regarding the fact that chochlear implants are examples of machine-brain interfaces in use *today*. For those who want to follow up the PBS URL is: http://www.pbs.org/22ndcentury/ It looks like they've got 4 segments available in Quicktime and Windows Media formats. The only part I objected to was the perspective that this is all 100 years in the future. There would have to be a significant deceleration towards the singularity for everything discussed to not be generally available by ~2040-2050. Indeed I'm feeling like a luddite already because one can apparently get podcasts of the segments but I've got no "Pod" to cast to. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 12:42:03 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:42:03 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070117221829.023aee80@satx.rr.com> <144050.19768.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118011101.0230f4d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/18/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > The only part I objected to was the perspective that this is all 100 years > in the future. There would have to be a significant deceleration towards > the singularity for everything discussed to not be generally available by > ~2040-2050. Indeed I'm feeling like a luddite already because one can > apparently get podcasts of the segments but I've got no "Pod" to cast to. > I doubt anyone would dare call you a luddite with all the computer tech you are surrounded by. :) Not hip to all the latest cool gadgets, maybe. ;) Podcasts are just MP3 files. You can play them on your computer, if you want to. People nowadays seem to want to always be surrounded by noise. Perhaps it is the noise in the environment that drives them to create their own personal noise to isolate themselves from their surroundings. As soon as they get up in the morning they switch on the radio or tv. When mobile, they use their iPod or chat on their phone, or listen to the car radio or cd player. They never seem to switch off or calm down. Personally I prefer peace and quiet. But if you sit in silence, just reading or writing, or even, (frightening thought!) just thinking or meditating, people assume there must be something wrong with you. (I wasn't asleep; I was just resting my eyes). BillK From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 14:09:49 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:09:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:02:46 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > Gordon, this is the same as the problem of the boxes. No question about that! It is yet another version of the bertrand paradox. > The Principle of Indifference is correct and beautiful in its elegance. So it would seem, but these problem situations demonstrate that the PI fails to guide us under certain conditions of high uncertainty; that is, it fails when it is most needed. > Maybe it would help you to remember that there's only a single TRUE > speed of the train. Of course, but the point here is that the PI fails to give us a logically consistent epistemic probability of that one true objective speed. The bertrand paradoxes are a problem and a source of embarrassment for those who advocate a logic-driven epistemic interpretation of probability theory, as opposed to a purely subjective or objective frequentist theory (neither of which make use of the PI as a logical principle). -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 14:39:46 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:39:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: <287002.25369.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <287002.25369.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:13:14 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yes, I agree. It's like asking, "What is the batting > average of a baseball player that has never been at > bat before?" A frequentist would say, "He doesn't have > one yet." A Bayesian would say, ".500". Within their > respective philosophies, both are correct. Not a bad analogy, assuming your Bayesian is relying on the PI and not making use of real statistics to set his priors. I think the Bayesian's position here is very weak, philosophically. "Please tell me, Captain," says Spock as he raises his eyebrow, "by what kind of illogical magic can someone obtain a batting average without actually going to bat?" -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 15:24:10 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:24:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:02:46 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > With the box, your problem was underspecified because... > With the train, your problem is underspecified because... Yes, but to say that a problem is "underspecified" is to say only that the problem conditions are uncertain and that our theory for managing uncertainty has failed. -gts From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 18 15:16:03 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:16:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <340632.92061.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200701181532.l0IFW4nP019999@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? ... > http://www.quantcast.com/extropy.org > > ... Most notably that visitors to the ExI > website are predominantly African American. If it is > true, then move over NAACP, theres a new org in town. > :) But if it is indeed true, how come there seem to be > so few on the list? Stuart LaForge Stuart, how would you know if there are so few African Americans on the list? What if we didn't see a reason to mention it? spike From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jan 18 16:28:58 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:28:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <287002.25369.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070118162858.GY13646@leitl.org> This thread has run into diminishing returns, I think. Time to wrap it up. On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 09:39:46AM -0500, gts wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:13:14 -0500, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > Yes, I agree. It's like asking, "What is the batting > > average of a baseball player that has never been at > > bat before?" A frequentist would say, "He doesn't have > > one yet." A Bayesian would say, ".500". Within their > > respective philosophies, both are correct. > > Not a bad analogy, assuming your Bayesian is relying on the PI and not > making use of real statistics to set his priors. > > I think the Bayesian's position here is very weak, philosophically. > > "Please tell me, Captain," says Spock as he raises his eyebrow, "by what > kind of illogical magic can someone obtain a batting average without > actually going to bat?" -- 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 16:43:34 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:43:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: <20070118162858.GY13646@leitl.org> References: <287002.25369.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> <20070118162858.GY13646@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:28:58 -0500, Eugen Leitl wrote: > This thread has run into diminishing returns, I think. > Time to wrap it up. We've barely touched on the vagaries of propensity theory, and have yet to investigate some other lesser known theories such as Gillies' artefactual theory. And Ben and I were only just beginning to dig into some questions about the meaning of randomness, exchangeability and infinite sequences. But ah well, perhaps no one else here is really interesting in attempting to understand and resolve these questions. Back to lurk mode for me I suppose, lest I incur the wrath of Eugen, keeper-of-the-threads... -gts From ben at goertzel.org Thu Jan 18 16:52:29 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:52:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <287002.25369.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> <20070118162858.GY13646@leitl.org> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701180852r2580695cg9afed66583b47311@mail.gmail.com> Hi gts, It might be interesting to move this thread to the AGI email list. There are some folks on there, such as Pei Wang, with a deep understanding of the philosophy of uncertainty... You can sign up here: http://www.agiri.org/email/ Since I co-moderate that list, I can guarantee this topic will not get sniped there, unless the discussion becomes really retarded somehow! Perhaps the topic is simply too fine-grained and technical for the extropy-chat list... -- Ben G On 1/18/07, gts wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:28:58 -0500, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > This thread has run into diminishing returns, I think. > > Time to wrap it up. > > We've barely touched on the vagaries of propensity theory, and have yet to > investigate some other lesser known theories such as Gillies' artefactual > theory. And Ben and I were only just beginning to dig into some questions > about the meaning of randomness, exchangeability and infinite sequences. > > But ah well, perhaps no one else here is really interesting in attempting > to understand and resolve these questions. Back to lurk mode for me I > suppose, lest I incur the wrath of Eugen, keeper-of-the-threads... > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 18 17:23:17 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:23:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: gts wrote: > "Please tell me, Captain," says Spock as he raises his > eyebrow, "by what kind of illogical magic can someone obtain > a batting average without actually going to bat?" Kirk sets down his glass of Rigelian brandy and turns to his friend sitting stiffly at the bar. With a hint of a smile, he leans over and lays his arm across Spock's shoulder. "Spock, you old objectivist...," Kirk began. Spock arches his eyebrow. "'Old', Captain?" "As humans, there are things that...we...just...know. We come into the world knowing to reach for our mother's breast." His eyes follow the Andorian in the miniskirt passing behind Spock. "We know certain things we like..." His eyes snap back and target his empty glass. "and some things we don't." "Yes Captain, I am quite familiar with the tenets of evolutionary psychology, but I find it fascinating that you humans often act as if with certainty, despite lacking a proper reference class." "Spock, we...are...our...own reference class." Kirk winks at Spock and rises to follow the Andorian, her hips swaying suggestively as she hints at moving toward the exit. "For example, old friend," Spock's eyebrow arches yet again. "How long can an Andorian hold her breath while kissing? I don't know, I've never kissed one--yet--but I'd maintain that I have a workable prior." "Indeed, Captain." - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 18 17:35:19 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:35:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070117221829.023aee80@satx.rr.com> <144050.19768.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118011101.0230f4d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070118112551.021a0640@satx.rr.com> At 10:02 AM 1/18/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: >You can find photos of almost anybody on the net. > I've seen static shots of McKibben before; it was the rather abraded-looking man in motion that struck me as unnerving. I'm sure it was just a hard day fighting the brave new world, and he'd been having a lovely life-affirming ice spa minutes earlier or something. >I was intending to post a link here to some photos of Damien, >but the Playboy photo-shoot samples were too embarrassing. ;) Here they are, me and my pussy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/42956650 at N00/sets/72157594370956996/?page=4 Fourth set of pix on Cat Sparks' set of images from her recent trip to TX from Oz; I'm the blue-tee-shirted bald loon . Bloody scary as well! Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 19:21:08 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:21:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701181532.l0IFW4nP019999@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <304520.80545.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The > Avantguardian > > Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? > ... > > http://www.quantcast.com/extropy.org > > > > ... Most notably that visitors to the ExI > > website are predominantly African American. If it > is > > true, then move over NAACP, theres a new org in > town. > > :) But if it is indeed true, how come there seem > to be > > so few on the list? Stuart LaForge > > > > Stuart, how would you know if there are so few > African Americans on the > list? What if we didn't see a reason to mention it? I don't. I was simply expressing my *unsubstantiated* doubts that we are some 80% African American as is claimed by the website. But if we were, it wouldn't matter to me one bit. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." -Abraham Lincoln ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 18 20:17:49 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:17:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <304520.80545.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200701181532.l0IFW4nP019999@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <304520.80545.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070118141044.0240b9c0@satx.rr.com> At 11:21 AM 1/18/2007 -0800, Stuart wrote: > > if it is indeed true, how come there seem > > to be so few on the list? spike sez: > > Stuart, how would you know if there are so few > > African Americans on the > > list? What if we didn't see a reason to mention it? > >I don't. I was simply expressing my *unsubstantiated* >doubts that we are some 80% African American as is >claimed by the website. But if we were, it wouldn't >matter to me one bit. Of course. But I think the astute reader would get a sense. As I recall, only two or three black folks have posted on ExI chat (or its earlier incarnation) for any length of time since the mid-'90s--c. 1% ?--and the two most prominent have either unsubbed or are lurking, to our collective loss. (Olga, is Patrick still reading the list?) I think there were probably more transgendered posters than African-American (I can think of four). Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 21:30:47 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:30:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701180852r2580695cg9afed66583b47311@mail.gmail.com> References: <287002.25369.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> <20070118162858.GY13646@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0701180852r2580695cg9afed66583b47311@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ben, > It might be interesting to move this thread to the AGI email list.... > Since I co-moderate that list, I can guarantee this topic will not get > sniped there.... Thanks! See you there. > Perhaps the topic is simply too fine-grained and technical for the > extropy-chat list... Possibly so. :-( -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 21:52:22 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:52:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: <380-22007141819435857@M2W004.mail2web.com> References: <380-22007141819435857@M2W004.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:43:05 -0500, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: >> Back to lurk mode for me I suppose, lest I incur the wrath of Eugen, >> keeper-of-the-threads... > > No need to imply wrath. Sometimes threads simply go on too long and list > members like a little variety. Sorry Natasha, but I didn't realize it was my or anyone else's job to provide list members with variety. The existence of one active thread does not preclude the existence of other active threads. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 22:05:40 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:05:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:23:17 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > gts wrote: > >> "Please tell me, Captain," says Spock as he raises his >> eyebrow, "by what kind of illogical magic can someone obtain >> a batting average without actually going to bat?" > > Kirk sets down his glass of Rigelian brandy and turns to his friend > sitting stiffly at the bar. With a hint of a smile, he leans over and > lays his arm across Spock's shoulder. > > "Spock, you old objectivist...," Kirk began. > > Spock arches his eyebrow. "'Old', Captain?" > > "As humans, there are things that...we...just...know. We come into the > world knowing to reach for our mother's breast." His eyes follow the > Andorian in the miniskirt passing behind Spock. "We know certain things > we like..." His eyes snap back and target his empty glass. "and some > things we don't." > > "Yes Captain, I am quite familiar with the tenets of evolutionary > psychology, but I find it fascinating that you humans often act as if > with certainty, despite lacking a proper reference class." > > "Spock, we...are...our...own reference class." Kirk winks at Spock and > rises to follow the Andorian, her hips swaying suggestively as she hints > at moving toward the exit. "For example, old friend," Spock's eyebrow > arches yet again. "How long can an Andorian hold her breath while > kissing? I don't know, I've never kissed one--yet--but I'd maintain that > I have a workable prior." > > "Indeed, Captain." Very good! :) -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 21:40:28 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:40:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701180852r2580695cg9afed66583b47311@mail.gmail.com> References: <287002.25369.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> <20070118162858.GY13646@leitl.org> <3cf171fe0701180852r2580695cg9afed66583b47311@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ben, > It might be interesting to move this thread to the AGI email list.... > Since I co-moderate that list, I can guarantee this topic will not get > sniped there, unless the discussion becomes really retarded somehow! Thanks! See you there. > Perhaps the topic is simply too fine-grained and technical for the > extropy-chat list... Too bad if so. :-( -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 18 22:11:39 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:11:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <380-22007141819435857@M2W004.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070118160619.023e7990@satx.rr.com> At 04:52 PM 1/18/2007 -0500, gts wrote: > > No need to imply wrath. Sometimes threads simply go on too long and list > > members like a little variety. > >Sorry Natasha, but I didn't realize it was my or anyone else's job to >provide list members with variety. That's fairly said. :) >The existence of one active thread does not preclude the existence of >other active threads. But oddly enough, it does seem to. Especially in the absence of a few quite different threads already in play. I suppose it's a bit like two or three people loudly picking nits in the middle of a dinner party, it seems to dry up the rest of the conversations and other people tend to tighten their lips and leave early. It *shouldn't* work that way in cyberspace, especially among intellectuals accustomed to the seminar room, but we're creatures of habit and the social body... Damien Broderick From mike99 at lascruces.com Thu Jan 18 22:45:23 2007 From: mike99 at lascruces.com (mike99) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:45:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? Message-ID: Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? Cheap, abundant and clean energy is the goal of environmentalists and technologists. Where will it come from? Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and biomass can provide some of it, but these sources have many limitations, such as low-energy density, relatively high cost, and uneven global distribution. If we could develop a technology to generate clean energy from an element found in water, our energy problems could be solved. Can we do that? Yes, with fusion. ...more -> http://latorra.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 23:10:24 2007 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:10:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51ce64f10701181510s3bdc2edbqd7741a381d264695@mail.gmail.com> How about thorium reactors based on liquid flouride salts? We have the technology to do that right now. Fusion would be great, but it requires much more capital. Positive net-energy fusion plants won't be seen for 5-10 years at least. But there is enough thorium ore to cover the world's fuel needs for decades. http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jan 18 22:44:35 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:44:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? Message-ID: <380-220071418224435475@M2W009.mail2web.com> From: gts >>No need to imply wrath. Sometimes threads simply go on too long and list >>members like a little variety. >Sorry Natasha, but I didn't realize it was my or anyone else's job to >provide list members with variety. Hey, defending the probability thread would be a better tactic to take! A suggestion would be to alter the subject line to reflect the finely-grained contents of the thread. We are proactive here. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From frankmac at ripco.com Fri Jan 19 01:43:56 2007 From: frankmac at ripco.com (frank McElligott) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:43:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability Message-ID: <001301c73b6b$4ab1e360$5b5de547@thebigloser> This weekend the Colts of Indianapolis play the Pats of New England to advance to the Superbowl. The last two times they have played each other the Colts have won. The previous four games before these last two victories the colts had lost to New England. In the last six games therefore the Pats have won 2/3 of the time. The quarterback of the Pat's Tom Brady is 12 victories and one defeat in his last 13 games. As their leader he has won the game for them at a rate of over 90%. Yet, All the smart money(gamblers) are betting the Colts to win the game and to win it by over 3 points. It is one thing to discuss probability, but to bet real money that's another. Who is the correct bet, the smart money or the Bayesian idea that the number says Brady wins the big games. Frank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 03:19:28 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:19:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10701181510s3bdc2edbqd7741a381d264695@mail.gmail.com> References: <51ce64f10701181510s3bdc2edbqd7741a381d264695@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0701181919v65dfad1aj68891378fc8ded0b@mail.gmail.com> 21:12 Thursday, 18 January 2007 > How about thorium reactors based on liquid flouride salts? We have > the technology to do that right now. Fusion would be great, but it > requires much more capital. Positive net-energy fusion plants won't > be seen for 5-10 years at least. But there is enough thorium ore to > cover the world's fuel needs for decades. > _If_ Bussard's Polywell turns out as everything it's cracked up to be, we might have a good rocket engine. http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/school/InterStellar/Explorer_Class/Bussard_Fusion_systems.HTML I haven't read of any such thing for thorium reactors. There might lie in the enormous amount of material at the blog MA gave a thousand superior designs. (In the great and glorious someday, I will catch up on my reading.) OTOH, you can drive a paper spaceship with paper power plants to any destination you like by simply torturing the data until it confesses. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 03:56:38 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:26:38 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070118160619.023e7990@satx.rr.com> References: <380-22007141819435857@M2W004.mail2web.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118160619.023e7990@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0701181956o2757f47aq63aaa44b32ba437f@mail.gmail.com> One word - gmail (is that a word? bah). It automagically threads conversations, so you see the list of threads, not emails (with a little number showing how many messages are in the thread, and bolded if some are unread). Really noisy threads used to bug the hell out of me (remember the g*n threads?), these days, I don't notice, and I see the quiet, high content, one-or-two post stuff that I used to miss. Emlyn On 19/01/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 04:52 PM 1/18/2007 -0500, gts wrote: > > > > No need to imply wrath. Sometimes threads simply go on too long and > list > > > members like a little variety. > > > >Sorry Natasha, but I didn't realize it was my or anyone else's job to > >provide list members with variety. > > That's fairly said. :) > > >The existence of one active thread does not preclude the existence of > >other active threads. > > But oddly enough, it does seem to. Especially in the absence of a few > quite different threads already in play. I suppose it's a bit like > two or three people loudly picking nits in the middle of a dinner > party, it seems to dry up the rest of the conversations and other > people tend to tighten their lips and leave early. It *shouldn't* > work that way in cyberspace, especially among intellectuals > accustomed to the seminar room, but we're creatures of habit and the > social body... > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jan 19 03:59:37 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:29:37 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] 22nd Century In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070117221829.023aee80@satx.rr.com> <144050.19768.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118011101.0230f4d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0701181959k5d91946ap7c356652c61d7394@mail.gmail.com> He'll definitely be played by John Malkovich in the Bill McKibben movie. Enough said. Emlyn On 18/01/07, BillK wrote: > > On 1/18/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Nope, that was the wearables pioneer Steve Mann, who also looks a tad > > weird for that reason. His shades hide a complex HUD system. McKibben > > looked like some unholy genetic hybrid of a haut uber Kraut and a > > concentration camp inmate. > > > > You can find photos of almost anybody on the net. > > > I was intending to post a link here to some photos of Damien, > but the Playboy photo-shoot samples were too embarrassing. ;) > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 05:41:25 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:41:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: <5366105b0701181919v65dfad1aj68891378fc8ded0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <656607.35804.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jay Dugger wrote: > OTOH, you can drive a paper spaceship with paper > power plants to any > destination you like by simply torturing the data > until it confesses. Now that's the quote of the day. Best laugh still goes to Jef's impromptu Star Trek scene however. :) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." -Abraham Lincoln ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 19 05:37:58 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:37:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses Message-ID: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I am doing a questionnaire on Senses and was looking for some help regarding this matter. What do you think is your most keen sense? Do you have a keen sense of taste, can you remember smell very well, can you hear or have a better ear? If you believe you have more than one keen sense, please specify in order. (Examples and stories are always welcome) If you want to contact me offlist it would be much appreciated and if anybody is interested in the results please feel free to let me know. If anybody is willing to ask it on their blog and get back to me with the results and/or just leave my e-mail where they can respond, it would be fabulous. Thanks Anna:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 19 08:31:49 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:31:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070119023108.0220e208@satx.rr.com> >What do you think is your most keen sense? Kinesthesia. No, really. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 19 10:44:35 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:44:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: <5366105b0701181919v65dfad1aj68891378fc8ded0b@mail.gmail.com> References: <51ce64f10701181510s3bdc2edbqd7741a381d264695@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0701181919v65dfad1aj68891378fc8ded0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070119104435.GQ13646@leitl.org> On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 09:19:28PM -0600, Jay Dugger wrote: > _If_ Bussard's Polywell turns out as everything it's cracked up to be, > we might have a good rocket engine. Don't know, the Tokamak has been vacuuming off enough funding and brain resources, but the timing of Bussard's alleged breakthrough has been awfully convenient. If it's so easy and cheap we'll know soon enough. In general, the fusion problem has been solved gigayears ago. It's called a star. What is needed is designing an antenna cheap enough -- preferrably, one that's autoinstalling, like trees. -- 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 Jan 19 10:48:04 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:48:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070119104804.GT13646@leitl.org> On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:45:23PM -0700, mike99 wrote: > > Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? > > Cheap, abundant and clean energy is the goal of environmentalists and > technologists. Where will it come from? Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal > and biomass can provide some of it, but these sources have many > limitations, such as low-energy density, relatively high cost, and > uneven global distribution. If we could develop a technology to > generate clean energy from an element found in water, our energy > problems could be solved. > > Can we do that? Yes, with fusion. > > ...more -> [1]http://latorra.blogspot.com/ Allright, let's look at this in detail. First, the full text, in order to be able to comment: http://latorra.blogspot.com/ Tuesday, January 16, 2007 Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? Cheap, abundant and clean energy is the goal of environmentalists and technologists. Where will it come from? Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and biomass can provide some of it, but these sources have many limitations, such as low-energy density, relatively high cost, and uneven global distribution. If we could develop a technology to generate clean energy from an element found in water, our energy problems could be solved. Can we do that? Yes, with fusion. Fusion powers the sun[1]. So, indirectly, all photovoltaic cells are indirectly using the output of the fusion process. But photovoltaics are far less inefficient than the fusion process itself. The development of practical fusion energy systems on earth has been the holy grail of scientists since the 1950s. Today, in the early years of the 21st century, the international effort to develop a commercial fusion energy system is still in its early developmental stages. The ITER "tokamak" (toroidal) fusion reactor now being built in France is experimental, not a commercial energy producing system[2]. Many decades will elapse before any electricity from this particular fusion technology can enter the public energy grid. The current ITER timeline projects commercialization no sooner than 2050 and probably much later. But the ITER machine is not the only possible fusion device. Dr. Robert Bussard and his colleagues claim to have developed a different method of producing fusion power using an Inertial-Electrodynamic Fusion Device that is thousands of times more efficient than the tokamak method, and can be built and deployed to produce commercially usable energy in a decade or so[3a & 3b]. In 2006 the International Academy of Science gave Dr. Bussard its highest award for this research[4]. According to Dr. Bussard, these are some of the advantages of his fusion power system[5]: * Stop Greenhouse Effect * Eliminate Acid Rain Sources * Decrease Thermal Pollution Sources * Stop Nuclear Waste Production * Destroy Nuclear Waste Inventory * End Water Shortages Forever * Cheap Fuel Free Electric Power * Clean Low Cost System * Fresh Water From The Sea * Practical Space Flight * Global Economic Stability * Cheap, Clean Therma/Electric Power Readily Available * Fixed Energy Prices Stabilize Economy * Low Value Cane In Third World Countries Becomes High Value Export Product * Third World Nations Can Become Economically Viable * Profitable Industrialization Possible * Destroys World Market For Gasoline * Eliminates Effect Of Oil Cartels * Oil States Suffer Drastic Income Losses * Desalinization Plants Allow Irrigation Of Arid Lands * Cheap Water Allows Effective Agriculture * Low Cost Power Stabilizes Industrial Nations * Oil Wars Vanish * Mid-East Stabilized by Economics * Third World Becomes Fiscally Responsible * End Use Market Price Ca. $5,000 B In Year 2000 $ * Sell/Lease Systems To Supply Energy Plants/Production * Royalty/Lease Fees at 2% of Market Price Equivalent To Ca. 2m/kWhr Surcharge Yields Net Income (Profit) at Ca. $100 B/Year (which means an estimated electrical cost of 1 cent/kWhr - ed.) If even half of these benefits were to materialize, the world would be transformed. So when will this actually happen? Maybe never. Dr. Bussard's government research funding of a few million dollars has been terminated. He estimates the cost of fully developing his technology into a commercial system to be about $200 million. This is a tiny fraction of the $12 billion of the ITER project. It's even a smaller fraction of the US Federal budget for 2007, which is over $3 trillion. The money Dr. Bussard needs to complete the development of his safe, clean, energy system would be a mere rounding error in the US government's budget, and certainly less than is currently sinking into the sump of fraud, waste and abuse (not to mention misguided policy initiatives). The dream of fusion power is still a dream deferred. The giant, slow-moving ITER project cannot deliver any useful power until the second half of the 21st century, if then. Dr. Bussard's fast, relatively cheap fusion system could be fully developed, tested and ? if it works as promised ? deployed by 2017. Fusion may be the linchpin technology for technical and economic development. Like the linchpin that prevents a wheel from sliding off its axle, fusion can secure the wheel of progress to the axle of safe energy. It can be the source of the clean, abundant energy required for both economic abundance on earth and the exploration oand settlement of space in our solar system and beyond. Is it worth risking some government money on such a project? I cannot imagine any convincing reason not to. -- 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 jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 14:54:53 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:54:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: <656607.35804.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <5366105b0701181919v65dfad1aj68891378fc8ded0b@mail.gmail.com> <656607.35804.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0701190654k69e8b417g3685a1074ee9919a@mail.gmail.com> 0853 Friday, 19 January 2007 On 1/18/07, The Avantguardian wrote: > > Now that's the quote of the day. Best laugh still goes > to Jef's impromptu Star Trek scene however. :) > I'll have to search for that scene. Did it lie in the probability thread? -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Jan 19 15:03:38 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:03:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: <20070119104435.GQ13646@leitl.org> References: <51ce64f10701181510s3bdc2edbqd7741a381d264695@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0701181919v65dfad1aj68891378fc8ded0b@mail.gmail.com> <20070119104435.GQ13646@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5366105b0701190703h3f7673dasf9b76f9e4e5f9e26@mail.gmail.com> 0855 Friday, 19 January 2007 On 1/19/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 09:19:28PM -0600, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > _If_ Bussard's Polywell turns out as everything it's cracked up to be, > > we might have a good rocket engine. > > Don't know, the Tokamak has been vacuuming off enough funding > and brain resources, but the timing of Bussard's alleged > breakthrough has been awfully convenient. I agree. Too convenient? I don't quite buy that--not that you argued it. First, Dr. Bussard grows no younger. The publicity burst, such as it was, might have no more motive than him wanting to make certain his recent work has a good chance to continue after his retirement or death. Second, necessity mothers invention. No one had any interest in electric cars when gasoline cost pennies per gallon. > > If it's so easy and cheap we'll know soon enough. > Agreed. I'll fund it if I win a lottery jackpot. Realistically, perhaps a fund drive to gather attention for the project? A la the Methuselah Mouse Prize, or through Fundable.org? > In general, the fusion problem has been solved gigayears > ago. It's called a star. What is needed is designing an > antenna cheap enough -- preferrably, one that's autoinstalling, > like trees. > Trees have many advantages, but not power density. You can build spaceships with trees, but only the paper kind. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 19 15:22:14 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:22:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: <5366105b0701190703h3f7673dasf9b76f9e4e5f9e26@mail.gmail.com> References: <51ce64f10701181510s3bdc2edbqd7741a381d264695@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0701181919v65dfad1aj68891378fc8ded0b@mail.gmail.com> <20070119104435.GQ13646@leitl.org> <5366105b0701190703h3f7673dasf9b76f9e4e5f9e26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070119152214.GK13646@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 09:03:38AM -0600, Jay Dugger wrote: > > In general, the fusion problem has been solved gigayears > > ago. It's called a star. What is needed is designing an > > antenna cheap enough -- preferrably, one that's autoinstalling, > > like trees. > > > > Trees have many advantages, but not power density. You can build Mine were metaphorical trees only, of course. I was hinting about the solid-state equivalent of orbital water hyacinth, which can grow optically dense in the course of months/years from already orbiting circumstellar material. Of course, a PV plant begetting PV plants is a pretty good terrestrial equivalent. > spaceships with trees, but only the paper kind. Your bottleneck is what doesn't vaporize your antenna. A star-sized maser driving a gray sail probe is the most efficient convenient propulsion system imaginable. It leaves the drive at home, reaction mass included. It's about the only way for interstellar and intergalactic relativistic travel. Even if they would work, fusion drives eat too much reaction mass. -- 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 Fri Jan 19 15:59:13 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:59:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: <20070119152214.GK13646@leitl.org> References: <51ce64f10701181510s3bdc2edbqd7741a381d264695@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0701181919v65dfad1aj68891378fc8ded0b@mail.gmail.com> <20070119104435.GQ13646@leitl.org> <5366105b0701190703h3f7673dasf9b76f9e4e5f9e26@mail.gmail.com> <20070119152214.GK13646@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 1/19/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Even if they would work, fusion drives eat too much reaction mass. But its useful if you are removing it from your reactor container to lengthen the container lifetime. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Sat Jan 20 03:45:32 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:45:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] what is probability? Message-ID: <29908926.774821169264732083.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Jef Allbright wrote: >Kirk sets down his glass of Rigelian brandy and turns to his friend >sitting stiffly at the bar. With a hint of a smile, he leans over and >lays his arm across Spock's shoulder. > >"Spock, you old objectivist...," Kirk began. > >Spock arches his eyebrow. "'Old', Captain?" > >"As humans, there are things that...we...just...know. We come into the >world knowing to reach for our mother's breast." His eyes follow the >Andorian in the miniskirt passing behind Spock. "We know certain things >we like..." His eyes snap back and target his empty glass. "and some >things we don't." > >"Yes Captain, I am quite familiar with the tenets of evolutionary >psychology, but I find it fascinating that you humans often act as if >with certainty, despite lacking a proper reference class." > >"Spock, we...are...our...own reference class." Kirk winks at Spock and >rises to follow the Andorian, her hips swaying suggestively as she hints >at moving toward the exit. "For example, old friend," Spock's eyebrow >arches yet again. "How long can an Andorian hold her breath while >kissing? I don't know, I've never kissed one--yet--but I'd maintain that >I have a workable prior." > >"Indeed, Captain." I swore I wouldn't reply to this thread, but how can I resist? Very funny, Jef. Excellent job, sir. PJ From pj at pj-manney.com Sat Jan 20 03:41:59 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:41:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] TIME MAGAZINE: The Brain -- A User's Guide Message-ID: <13702756.774641169264519812.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> TIME MAGAZINE strikes again: The new special issue is devoted to THE BRAIN - A user's guide. We all know this stuff, but it's great to see it out for the public. Neurosociety, here we come. I haven't read it yet. I'll just wait for my copy to arrive. There are too many links. Just go to: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580416,00.html COVER STORY The New Map Of The Brain There are uncharted worlds inside your head, but science is drawing a map Read the Cover Story The cover package also includes: The Mystery of Consciousness You exist, right? Prove it. How 100 billion jabbering neurons create the knowledge--or illusion--that you're here How The Brain Rewires Itself Not only can the brain learn new tricks, but it can also change its structure and function--even in old age 6 Lessons for Handling Stress Five Paths to Understanding >From gruesome ancient rituals to modern pharmacology, mankind had been trying to discover what's really going on inside our heads. A short history Time Travel in the Brain What are you doing when you aren't doing anything at all? What Do Babies Know? Less than we thought, say scientists at the new Babylab. What passed for intelligence may have been boredom How We Make Life-and-Death Decisions "Morality is more properly felt than judged of; though this feeling or sentiment is commonly so soft and gentle, that we are apt to confound it with an idea." DAVID HUME, Scottish philosopher The Flavor Of Memories Emotions turn out to be key in how we remember--and can help us recast traumas dredged from the past Marketing To Your Mind With new scanning technologies, smart companies may soon sell their products directly to the decider in chief: the brain itself The Power of Hope We say "Sweet dreams" when we induce general anesthesia--but nobody dreams. Consciousness stops.With anesthesia, however, we know how to undo the spell. You wake up when the operation is over, and there you are again. Not so when you drop into the coma of an advanced brain tumor Who Should Read Your Mind? Brain scanners are becoming more powerful all the time--and privacy experts are worried How To Change A Personality Drugs and implants can be used for more than treating brain disorders. But there are limits What The Mouse Brain Tells Us Stunning new images from the brains of mice offer insights into the human mind disorders The Gift Of Mimicry Why monkeys see and do, why babies smile at mothers and why our skin crawls at scary movies Essay The Last Taboo A Pipe Organ A Story We Tell Ourselves An Unbridgeable Gulf A Clever Robot From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 20 04:17:58 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:17:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <304520.80545.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200701200418.l0K4I6NV028703@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > > Stuart, how would you know if there are so few > > African Americans on the > > list? What if we didn't see a reason to mention it? > > I don't. I was simply expressing my *unsubstantiated* > doubts that we are some 80% African American as is > claimed by the website. But if we were, it wouldn't > matter to me one bit. > > Stuart LaForge Ok. I would suggest that 80% African American is roughly correct for ExI. I know we have perhaps 15% Europeans on this list, 5% everything else outside of Europe and the Americas. Humans evolved in Africa, therefore all humans who live on the North and South American continents are African Americans, which probably is about 80% of ExI. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 20 04:21:07 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:21:07 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070118141044.0240b9c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200701200421.l0K4LFuY001301@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > > Of course. But I think the astute reader would get a sense. As I > recall, only two or three black folks have posted on ExI chat ... > > Damien Broderick Ja, but it didn't say anything about black, only African American. Plenty of modern Africans are blonde, blue eyed, white skinned people. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 04:45:25 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:45:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701200418.l0K4I6NV028703@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <304520.80545.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <200701200418.l0K4I6NV028703@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701192045w5a005e7ak4fc5c2bddc33f4a9@mail.gmail.com> On 1/19/07, spike wrote: > Ok. I would suggest that 80% African American is roughly correct for ExI. > I know we have perhaps 15% Europeans on this list, 5% everything else > outside of Europe and the Americas. Humans evolved in Africa, therefore all > humans who live on the North and South American continents are African > Americans, which probably is about 80% of ExI. I would suggest that 75% of list members are currently not facing north; more than half have a microsoft product installed on their computer; and that 100% are consuming electricity in order to access this list. Where are you getting your figures, because I'm making mine up... I can't fathom how you can get this kind of information for a list like this. Sorry if my absurd example seems confrontational, I really do want to understand how anyone can even guess at these metrics - and what they would mean if the degree of confidence were considered high enough. In my mind, everyone who posts here are just people with various ideas. Their specific biological and geographic details do not matter (to me). This will probably continue to be my perspective when hyperintelligent squid are posting, or artificial intelligence is trying to interact with humanity on this channel. Hmm... From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 20 05:02:36 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:02:36 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <62c14240701192045w5a005e7ak4fc5c2bddc33f4a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200701200516.l0K5G1MD001058@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty ... > > Where are you getting your figures, because I'm making mine up... > > I can't fathom how you can get this kind of information for a list > like this... We had a survey a few years ago with the question where are you from. Admittedly this has been some time ago, but these are the approximate numbers as I recall. Did anyone archive that? It might not have been accurate even then, for it selected those who didn't mind people knowing where they live, and wasn't perfectly clear if it meant where you currently live or where you are *from*. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 06:13:59 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:13:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701200516.l0K5G1MD001058@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <62c14240701192045w5a005e7ak4fc5c2bddc33f4a9@mail.gmail.com> <200701200516.l0K5G1MD001058@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701192213m7229a2b0h4585a36ba874446d@mail.gmail.com> On 1/20/07, spike wrote: > We had a survey a few years ago with the question where are you from. > Admittedly this has been some time ago, but these are the approximate > numbers as I recall. Did anyone archive that? It might not have been > accurate even then, for it selected those who didn't mind people knowing > where they live, and wasn't perfectly clear if it meant where you currently > live or where you are *from*. Thanks. I am a little late to the party. :) From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 20 19:02:47 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:02:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <62c14240701192213m7229a2b0h4585a36ba874446d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty ... > On 1/20/07, spike wrote: > > We had a survey a few years ago with the question where are you from. ... > > Thanks. I am a little late to the party. :) Good point, there are a lot of new faces since the old days. We should repeat the survey. I am posting from the U.S. of A, more specifically northern Taxifornia. ExIers, where are you from? Give the question your own interpretation (where do you live, or where did you grow up, or where do you want to live, or where is the place you go at newtonmas that you think of as home, for instance) and answer or not according to your comfort level. The result speaks to both transparency and accuracy of online polls. Since we first did this question about 8 years ago, there seem to be fewer transparency advocates and more privacy fans. Comments on that comment also welcome. Mike I am traditionally a big transparency fan, but having the baby recently has caused me to rethink that notion. {8-] spike From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jan 20 19:36:11 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:36:11 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike wrote: > Good point, there are a lot of new faces since the old days. > We should repeat the survey. I am posting from the U.S. of > A, more specifically northern Taxifornia. > > ExIers, where are you from? I call Santa Barbara home the last 6 years. Mix of Northern CA, Southern CA, Tokyo for ~17 years Northern California until 24yrs Michigan until 9yrs Florida until 4yrs Transparency is increasingly ineluctable and can be used to one's advantage, so I go with the flow. - Jef From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 19:56:02 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:56:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <62c14240701192213m7229a2b0h4585a36ba874446d@mail.gmail.com> <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701201156q9488279y2c88183ff62dcb6b@mail.gmail.com> On 1/20/07, spike wrote: > ExIers, where are you from? > > Give the question your own interpretation (where do you live, or where did > you grow up, or where do you want to live, or where is the place you go at > newtonmas that you think of as home, for instance) and answer or not > according to your comfort level. The result speaks to both transparency and > accuracy of online polls. > > Since we first did this question about 8 years ago, there seem to be fewer > transparency advocates and more privacy fans. Comments on that comment also > welcome. Mike I am traditionally a big transparency fan, but having the > baby recently has caused me to rethink that notion. I usually advocate trying to protect identity because it is all we have/are in an online world. That can be a difficult thing to do because our world is generally too open. For example, if I provide information about myself to an archived forum, that information become publicly available forever. If that information changes, there is no way to revoke it. Generally web content is assumed to be "now" regardless of how old it actually may be. So out of date information cannot be corrected because the "right" to manage that information is immediately relinquished to the point in time it enters the public. We will need a major upgrade to the infrastructure of the information age before we have mechanisms that would allow me to authorize information to a group (such as ExI) without coincidentally permanently authorizing that information to the public. Considering the economic advantage to business/government to maintain the status quo, and the complete lack of awareness in the general public about the value of the information they carelessly give away - there is little motivation to even consider how this upgrade might happen. [several tangential thoughts aborted for lack of coherence] Spike, what about having a baby has changed your view on transparency vs privacy? I could envision how a baby could sway someone in either direction. From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jan 20 20:14:13 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:14:13 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? References: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070120141320.02dafc40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:36 PM 1/20/2007, you wrote: >Spike wrote: > > > Good point, there are a lot of new faces since the old days. > > We should repeat the survey. I am posting from the U.S. of > > A, more specifically northern Taxifornia. > > > > ExIers, where are you from? > >I call Santa Barbara home the last 6 years. Oh lucky you! >Transparency is increasingly ineluctable and can be used to one's >advantage, so I go with the flow. Okay, I'm in the south of France then ... 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 robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 20:52:41 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:52:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070120141320.02dafc40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20070120141320.02dafc40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: Ok, this thread is becoming quite confused. Spike does not live in Santa Barbara and Natasha does not live in the south of France. And though have been to Santa Barbara, do not have references, but can clearly point to references that I have been to the south of France... [1]. That is a picture *I* took in Cannes in the or early '90s. (it was unanticipatedly during the film festival but that is a different story...). Spike's perspective is correct. One should try to protect or limit the uncontrolled use of ones "identity". One should particularly limit this with respect to ones offpspring (Daddy is daddy, Mommy is mommy) and one should not hesitate to enforce those concepts. (At the same time extropians should ecourage free thinking should mommy and daddy prove limited.) Your children are your children but they are not clones and they are certainly not your property. So parental rights should be determined by the ability to benefit the child and not the parents. (Parents in many cases are lost causes -- those with extropic perspectives would realize this and say "How to make the best of a bad situation?".) Robert 1. http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/images/canne1.jpg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 20 21:37:31 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:37:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701202137.l0KLbcN0027174@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Robert that was Jef posting from Santa Barbara. I had previously commented that I was in Northern Taxifornia. Mighta been confusing with the reply > thingies. Natasha?s south of France comment was making a good point that with online polls, anyone can post anything they want, so estimates based on vogue memories like the ones I posted before might be as good as the hard numbers from the poll we took years ago. My question was extremely open ended; Natasha?s heart might indeed be in the south of France. We have German, Italian, British, Swedish posters but no French ExI-ers as I once noted with curiosity. With respect to Mike?s question about how having a baby has changed my perspective on privacy, one ethical principle that I hold dear is that I do not wish to impose my own views on others. I am open to transparency myself, but my being transparent forces my own son to be partially transparent, a matter with which he has not yet expressed comfort. To keep his options open, I must limit to some extent my own transparency. Paradoxes abound. More later on that, diapers are needin a changin. spike ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:53 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? > Ok, this thread is becoming quite confused.? Spike does not live in Santa Barbara and Natasha does not live in the south of France.? And though have been to Santa Barbara, do not have references, but can clearly point to references that I have been to the south of France... Robert From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jan 20 21:56:58 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:56:58 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701202137.l0KLbcN0027174@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701202137.l0KLbcN0027174@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1645.163.1.72.81.1169330218.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> "vogue memories", I guess those are Natasha's memories of her career as a supermodel? :-) spike wrote: > My question was extremely open ended; > Natasha?s heart might indeed be in the south of France. Yes, I have discovered that my heart seem to have been in England all this time (it was last observed climbing around on the parapet of one of the nearby cathedrals; like previous times it escaped capture). Seriously, I think that I have more in common with the Anglosphere than Sweden both culturally, politically and intellectually. It is a very refreshing feeling to discover just how weird one's home for the past 33 years looks from the outside. > With respect to Mike?s question about how having a baby has changed my > perspective on privacy, one ethical principle that I hold dear is that I > do > not wish to impose my own views on others. I am open to transparency > myself, but my being transparent forces my own son to be partially > transparent, a matter with which he has not yet expressed comfort. To > keep > his options open, I must limit to some extent my own transparency. > Paradoxes abound. Interesting argument. One might argue that before a certain age children do not have a concept or need for privacy, so they could be forced to live in their parents transparent life. Normally they will want privacy after a while (5 years?), and that would limit the initial transparent period. But if you reared your child in a transparent way, would he then want privacy when he got old enough? It is an interesting question. If yes, then the desire for privacy may indeed be fundamentally ingrained in us humans and we might take this as evidence that transparent societies (despite their other benefits) might not truly suit us. If no, then there might not be any problem imposing the transparency - except that a choice has indeed been made for the kid that he did not participate in, yet now would wholeheartedly agree with. Ah, kids are such ethical problems! Trolleys running down branching tracks, brains in jars and frozen embryos in burning IVF labs are so much more manageable! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jan 20 21:44:42 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:44:42 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1626.163.1.72.81.1169329482.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > ExIers, where are you from? I grew up in Boredom, and early migrated to Science Fiction and Science. There I live a nomadic lifestyle, usually travelling between Math, Computer Science, Neuroscience and Complex Systems with frequent trips abroad to Philosophy, History, Politics and other exotic places. I guess one could say I have an Enlightenment ethnicity. Of course, physically I'm a male from Sweden living in Oxford, but who cares about that? > Since we first did this question about 8 years ago, there seem to be fewer > transparency advocates and more privacy fans. Comments on that comment > also > welcome. I like privacy, but I simply can't see how to keep it reliably in the future without resorting to massive disinformation shielding, undermining the information society. I think I prefer a two-way transparent society to one where we have to trust opaque authorities to handle our information responsibly. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jan 20 22:31:43 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:31:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <1645.163.1.72.81.1169330218.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <200701202137.l0KLbcN0027174@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1645.163.1.72.81.1169330218.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070120162635.024338f8@satx.rr.com> At 10:56 PM 1/20/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: >Ah, kids are such ethical problems! Trolleys >running down branching tracks, brains in jars and frozen embryos in >burning IVF labs are so much more manageable! That last one caught my attention. Is this a current ethicsbiz gedanken? How many frozen embryos would you need to "save" at the cost of your own life? Are you morally obliged to perish in the fire if you can throw out (to safety) no more than one poor shivering blastocyst, which probably won't implant successfully anyway given current tech? If not, how many do you need to save? I like this reductio. Damien From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jan 20 22:57:57 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:57:57 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070120162635.024338f8@satx.rr.com> References: <200701202137.l0KLbcN0027174@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1645.163.1.72.81.1169330218.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070120162635.024338f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2066.163.1.72.81.1169333877.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:56 PM 1/20/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: > >>Ah, kids are such ethical problems! Trolleys >>running down branching tracks, brains in jars and frozen embryos in >>burning IVF labs are so much more manageable! > > That last one caught my attention. Is this a current ethicsbiz > gedanken? How many frozen embryos would you need to "save" at the > cost of your own life? Are you morally obliged to perish in the fire > if you can throw out (to safety) no more than one poor shivering > blastocyst, which probably won't implant successfully anyway given > current tech? If not, how many do you need to save? I like this reductio. It is a popular gedanken among our gang of bioliberal thinkers. For obvious reasons it is not popular among the defenders of stem cell rights and similar things. The usual statement is something along the lines of "If the clinic is burning, should you save a dewar with a few hundred frozen fertilized embryos or a child?" A bunch of variants appear in Matthew Liao's latest paper, where the child might also be irrevocably dying due to smoke poisoning, the child might be yours, or one of the embryos might be your own last chance of having a child. I really think the Gedankenclinic should have invested in a better sprinkler system! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From riel at surriel.com Sun Jan 21 00:35:37 2007 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:35:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: <20070119104804.GT13646@leitl.org> References: <20070119104804.GT13646@leitl.org> Message-ID: <45B2B559.7030102@surriel.com> Eugen Leitl wrote: > Is it worth risking some government money on such a project? I cannot imagine any convincing reason not to. Sounds like a Richard Branson kind of project. Just far enough off the beaten path that most politicians and investors won't touch it, but with the potential to be wildly profitable if successful. -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 01:36:59 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:36:59 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <62c14240701192213m7229a2b0h4585a36ba874446d@mail.gmail.com> <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0701201736i3aa96278gd8703c08a99beb8c@mail.gmail.com> On 1/20/07, spike wrote: > > ExIers, where are you from? Dublin, Ireland. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Sun Jan 21 02:29:26 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:29:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0701201736i3aa96278gd8703c08a99beb8c@mail.gmail.com> References: <62c14240701192213m7229a2b0h4585a36ba874446d@mail.gmail.com> <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <8d71341e0701201736i3aa96278gd8703c08a99beb8c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701201829t161093f9l938f3f8ef759ecf0@mail.gmail.com> I am currently residing in the burbs north of Washington DC (not an area I particularly recommend, but I'm stuck here for a while due to a shared child custody arrangement w/ my ex-wife), but am spending a lot of time in San Francisco and Belo Horizonte (Brazil) also.... I am not a DC native tho: I was born in Rio de Janeiro, and have lived all around the US as well as in Oz and NZ... And, I am pleased to live in an era where my most-frequent physical vicinity is not a very important parameter of my existence.... And looking forward to it becoming even less relevant in the near future ;-) -- Ben Goertzel On 1/20/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 1/20/07, spike wrote: > > ExIers, where are you from? > > Dublin, Ireland. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 21 03:18:57 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:18:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nh tax evaders In-Reply-To: <2066.163.1.72.81.1169333877.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200701210333.l0L3XtEd016475@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Any speculation regarding whether or not Mike Lorrey is holed up with this bunch? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245003,00.html spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 21 03:24:05 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:24:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <2066.163.1.72.81.1169333877.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200701210343.l0L3hhEq028856@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... > "If the clinic is burning, should you save a dewar with a few hundred > frozen fertilized embryos or a child?" ... Anders Sandberg, Anders, this one is easy. The living child has humans who have emotionally bonded to her, the embryos not. As a new parent, I do know how that feels, and would never question for a second the rightness of saving the child. Additionally, we can easily make a bunch of new frozen fertilized embryos, more than can be reasonably brought to term. Another argument is that there is an excellent chance all the embryos in the dewar would survive the fire, as a dewar and a bunch of LN2 would be a great fire shield. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 21 03:49:26 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:49:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <1645.163.1.72.81.1169330218.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200701210349.l0L3nVRl008076@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... > > > "vogue memories", I guess those are Natasha's memories of her career as a > supermodel? :-) {8^D haaaahahahahahahaaaa, ja, I love it when a typo makes a new word which alters the meaning of the sentence. Vogue memories. Was there at one time a magazine by the name Vogue? Was it about fashion or some such thing? Is it still in existence? I haven't seen it in years. Perhaps I hang out with the wrong crowd. > > spike wrote: > > My question was extremely open ended; > > Natasha's heart might indeed be in the south of France. > > Yes, I have discovered that my heart seem to have been in England all this > time (it was last observed climbing around on the parapet of one of the > nearby cathedrals; like previous times it escaped capture)... Anders do be careful while climbing around on parapets, and with whomever it was attempting to capture your heart. > > > With respect to Mike's question about how having a baby has changed my > > perspective on privacy... > > Interesting argument. One might argue that before a certain age children > do not have a concept or need for privacy, so they could be forced to live > in their parents transparent life... Yes but of course the internet never forgets. > ... But > if you reared your child in a transparent way, would he then want privacy > when he got old enough? It is an interesting question... I don't even know how to guess. Anyone have any data on that? I was raised with less transparency than average I think. Now I am more comfortable with transparency than most. > ... Ah, kids are such ethical problems! Anders Sandberg Oh my yes. More ethical dilemmas have presented themselves in his first half year than in my previous 20. For instance, I find myself thinking early and often about what values I should instill in him. This is a reprise of a thread from several years ago. I am 45 years senior to my son. The world changed so much in those 45 years that most of the values with which I was raised are now wildly inappropriate. For instance, I was told that the two most important things for a boy to learn are auto mechanics and self defense. The mechanics have come in most handy over the years, but this skill is far from the most important. Self defense is a skill that has proven practically useless. In young Isaac's future, neither of these will likely be worthwhile at all. Neither my parents nor my grandparents ever taught me anything about managing wealth. This is understandable, since in the days when I was learning values, they had very little. Managing money is probably the most important skill I can teach my son. Unfortunately I know very little about that subject. Another example: get odd jobs, work hard etc. This seemed right at the time, but the youthful time I spent working minimum wage jobs for a pittance is worse than lost, for on at least one of those jobs I accumulated injuries that are with me to this day. Another example: I was taught to take good care of my toys. Now toys have become so cheap the local Salvation Army will not even take them unless they are new in the original shrink wrap. Toys are a major landfill problem. Production techniques and materials science have given us a vision of things to come: really good toys are cheap enough that they quickly fill the entire space in my house, very expensive space I might add. I cannot put toys away, for there is no away in my modest abode. All the aways are already crammed full. So don't worry Isaac about taking care of your toys. But do develop a fondness for *small* toys. spike From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Jan 21 03:55:10 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 04:55:10 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <200701210343.l0L3hhEq028856@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701210343.l0L3hhEq028856@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <57894.86.137.247.245.1169351710.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > ... >> "If the clinic is burning, should you save a dewar with a few hundred >> frozen fertilized embryos or a child?" ... Anders Sandberg, > > Anders, this one is easy. The living child has humans who have > emotionally > bonded to her, the embryos not. As a new parent, I do know how that > feels, > and would never question for a second the rightness of saving the child. That is of course the point of the scenario. It makes the bioconservatives very uncomfortable, and so far I have not heard a consistent argument from them why they would save the child yet claim there is a lot more persons in the dewar. The emotional bond aspect is interesting. Do you think the emotional bond has an ethical value on its own? > Additionally, we can easily make a bunch of new frozen fertilized embryos, > more than can be reasonably brought to term. Another argument is that > there > is an excellent chance all the embryos in the dewar would survive the > fire, > as a dewar and a bunch of LN2 would be a great fire shield. The last one is cheating in a philosophical gedanken because it brings in common sense and real physics. It is against the rules of the game. An engineer would not choose between switching a runaway trolley onto a track where it would crush 10 people and switching it onto a track where it would kill just one, he would use the switch and some nearby junk to derail it so nobody got hurt except the ethical dilemma :-) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Jan 21 04:31:44 2007 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:31:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] nh tax evaders In-Reply-To: <200701210333.l0L3XtEd016475@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701210333.l0L3XtEd016475@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <45B2ECB0.3020701@goldenfuture.net> spike wrote: >Any speculation regarding whether or not Mike Lorrey is holed up with this >bunch? > >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245003,00.html > >spike > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > Nah, I daresay he's too canny to get involved with an obviously-doomed effort, much as he might sympathize with them ideologically. Joseph http://transhumanist.blogspot.com From transhumanist at goldenfuture.net Sun Jan 21 04:26:29 2007 From: transhumanist at goldenfuture.net (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:26:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <45B2EB75.3020207@goldenfuture.net> spike wrote: >ExIers, where are you from? > Northern New Jersey. Joseph From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 21 04:44:18 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:44:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <57894.86.137.247.245.1169351710.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <200701210459.l0L4x8qn008823@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire > > > spike wrote: ... > > The emotional bond aspect is interesting. Do you think the emotional bond > has an ethical value on its own? Excellent question. I do not know the answer, nor can I offer any real insight. My instinct is to protect that bond from any possible damage. I would not question my instinct for a nanosecond, nor would I expect any second thought afterwards had I to allowed a thousand frozen embryos perish to save one breathing child. I have a hard time understanding the bioconservative, but this brings up an interesting and uncomfortable aspect of cryonics. I am concerned that after sufficient time, there will be no one alive who is emotionally bonded to the cryonauts. Then perhaps there would be little drive to resurrect them. This notion actually came up when you and Greg Burch were at my humble abode a few years ago. You may recall my family picture wall. I observed while pointing out a photo of my great great grandfather that I would likely be unwilling to put significant resources into bringing him back today. But my grandfather, with whom I bonded emotionally in many ways more than with my own parents, I would put my every last dollar into bringing him back to life. But I doubt my son would be interested in him, having never met him. ... > > The last one is cheating in a philosophical gedanken ... Anders Sandberg, Ja thanks. Shelly pointed out that I also ignored the notion that many of the frembryos might have been generated by mothers who are no longer fertile, so that this frembryo is her only chance to have her own biological offspring, which is of greater value than I can ever understand. It is not surprising that she would think of that immediately, having been thru the whole fertility clinic nightmare. spike From sentience at pobox.com Sun Jan 21 05:34:45 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:34:45 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <200701210459.l0L4x8qn008823@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701210459.l0L4x8qn008823@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <45B2FB75.40208@pobox.com> spike wrote: > > This notion actually came up when you and Greg Burch were at my humble abode > a few years ago. You may recall my family picture wall. I observed while > pointing out a photo of my great great grandfather that I would likely be > unwilling to put significant resources into bringing him back today. But my > grandfather, with whom I bonded emotionally in many ways more than with my > own parents, I would put my every last dollar into bringing him back to > life. But I doubt my son would be interested in him, having never met him. In every generation, unto the furthest star and the deepest depths of Time, for as long as that light lasts which began in the human species, there will be those who care for every sibling of the family Sentience. Those who help freeze you may not know you, but for your sake they have set themselves against Death to shatter the scythe. And others of that same kind, also shall revive the frozen. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 21 05:46:18 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:46:18 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <45B2FB75.40208@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200701210546.l0L5kO0V008736@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky ... > > In every generation, unto the furthest star and the deepest depths of > Time, for as long as that light lasts which began in the human species, > there will be those who care for every sibling of the family Sentience. > Those who help freeze you may not know you, but for your sake they > have set themselves against Death to shatter the scythe. And others of > that same kind, also shall revive the frozen... Eliezer Thanks Eli, this is eloquent beyond poetry. spike From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 06:06:09 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:06:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <200701210546.l0L5kO0V008736@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <45B2FB75.40208@pobox.com> <200701210546.l0L5kO0V008736@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0701202206m20eae73dn808a29a1fe828cb1@mail.gmail.com> Sunday, 21 January 2007 On 1/20/07, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > ... > > > > In every generation, unto the furthest star and the deepest depths of > > Time, for as long as that light lasts which began in the human species, > > there will be those who care for every sibling of the family Sentience. > > Those who help freeze you may not know you, but for your sake they > > have set themselves against Death to shatter the scythe. And others of > > that same kind, also shall revive the frozen... Eliezer > > > Thanks Eli, this is eloquent beyond poetry. > > spike > > Perhaps that dating of emotional bonds will turn out for the best. The early generations of cryonics will probably have used crude techniques compared to the later generations. I think this will probably make them harder to revive. If your great-great-great grandchild doesn't remember you well enough to care about your revival, he or she might care enough to revive your great-great-grandchild, who in turn might care enough to revive your great-grandchild at a later date, and presumably with better tools. by induction, this might proceed to your revival at the latest date and with the best possible tools. Full of holes, and vulgar next to Eliezer's eloquence, I admit. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Jan 21 05:54:48 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:54:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire References: <200701210459.l0L4x8qn008823@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <45B2FB75.40208@pobox.com> Message-ID: <001f01c73d20$a9dbf180$640fa8c0@kevin> > In every generation, unto the furthest star and the deepest depths of > Time, for as long as that light lasts which began in the human species, > there will be those who care for every sibling of the family Sentience. > Those who help freeze you may not know you, but for your sake they > have set themselves against Death to shatter the scythe. And others of > that same kind, also shall revive the frozen. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Yes. This is a great thing. I was watching "World Trade Center" last night and it dawned on me how great it was that there were hundreds of people willing to crawl down a hole and risk killing themselves just to save a couple strangers that were near death. Only a minor shift in some rubble would have killed nearly every person in that hole. I remarked to my fiancee that it was terrific there were people like them and like those who care for people who can't care for themselves. I sure as heck wouldn't be able to do either one. While I appreciate the thought experiment, the reality is that someone out there is going to be willing to save the child, then go back in for the embryos even if the situation seems almost hopeless. They will save them in the order they were able and possibly depending on the level of danger at the moment to each. The child is probably in more immediate danger so would most likely be removed first. The question of right or wrong is silly because for each situation, the rightness or wrongness is relative to the individual on the scene and as such, there is no "right" answer any more than there is when you was "which color is prettier" Pink or Purple?" From kevin at kevinfreels.com Sun Jan 21 06:15:36 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:15:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Behavior and genetics Message-ID: <003801c73d23$91941820$640fa8c0@kevin> Can anyone here recommend material on the study of behavioral genetics and the selection pressure for the human ability to quickly overcome genetic behavior through conditioning? I had a thought that human learning, achievement, fashion and social skills all stem from a neat trick we picked up that allows us to adapt our behavior in the current generation in response to our environment rather than waiting dozens of generations for selection to work it's long process. Add a feedback loop and you have a prescription for a species who's social structure evolves faster than the physical structure. All of what we are may be wrapped up in a minor adaptation that allows us to essentially reprogram behavior on the fly. I thought I would spend some time studying this, but I am finding it difficult to find material. Either there just isn't much yet, or I am simply barking up the wrong tree. Kevin Freels -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Jan 21 05:26:25 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:26:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: References: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070121001251.0379e5a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:36 AM 1/20/2007 -0800, Jef wrote: snip >Transparency is increasingly ineluctable and can be used to one's >advantage, so I go with the flow. The last time the scientology cult knew where I lived they sent a thug to harass me. Since I don't put up with that I forced the thug's vehicle into a driveway and called the cops. In trying to push me out of the way with his vehicle I suffered nerve damage to my leg that took over a year to resolve (more or less, I still have a funny feeling patch). I filed charges against the thug. The Canadian government protected him under their notion of "privacy" so he could not be served with legal papers. Of course the cult is still looking for me. If I quit posting it might be because they found me. There are a lot of people who complain about life being too boring. That's not my problem. Keith PS. http://www.operatingthetan.com/expositor.htm Don't try to read the low rez stuff, there is an OCR copy below. From alex at ramonsky.com Sun Jan 21 07:46:28 2007 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 07:46:28 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Behavior and genetics References: <003801c73d23$91941820$640fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <45B31A54.8010108@ramonsky.com> Check out "Synaptic Self" by Joseph LeDoux and google 'epigenetics'. Best, AR ******* kevinfreels.com wrote: > Can anyone here recommend material on the study of behavioral genetics > and the selection pressure for the human ability to quickly overcome > genetic behavior through conditioning? I had a thought that human > learning, achievement, fashion and social skills all stem from a neat > trick we picked up that allows us to adapt our behavior in the current > generation in response to our environment rather than waiting dozens > of generations for selection to work it's long process. Add a feedback > loop and you have a prescription for a species who's social structure > evolves faster than the physical structure. All of what we are may be > wrapped up in a minor adaptation that allows us to essentially > reprogram behavior on the fly. I thought I would spend some time > studying this, but I am finding it difficult to find material. Either > there just isn't much yet, or I am simply barking up the wrong tree. > Kevin Freels > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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 Sun Jan 21 08:16:29 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:16:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children Message-ID: >Another example: I was taught to take good care of my toys. Now toys >have become so cheap the local Salvation Army will not even take them >unless they are new in the original shrink wrap. Toys are a major >landfill problem. Production techniques and materials science have given >us a vision of things to come: really good toys are cheap enough that >they quickly fill the entire space in my house, very expensive space I >might add. I cannot put toys away, for there is no away in my modest >abode. All the aways are already crammed full. So don't worry Isaac >about taking care of your toys. But do develop a fondness for *small* >toys. When my sisters and I were living on our boat in the 60s, all of our toys needed to fit into the hanging orange canvas storage unit above our bunks with dimension approximately: 2ft-6in-6in (length-width-depth). That meant that I had room for roughly: one or two barbie dolls, a stuffed animal, jacks and bouncy balls, one or two decks of cards. (Strange, I don't remember: where were my books ? They are the largest volume-filling items in my living space now.) I don't think that kids _need_ that many toys. I don't remember 'missing' the fact that I did not have many toys. Children have their imaginations. I do wonder if all of the toys that kids have today are much more due to the 'nurturing' part of the parents' psyche towards their children (I know that I would all too easily spoil my kids with toys.) If the children had no exposure to television, would they really _want_ or _need_ all of those toys? 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 sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 21 10:19:20 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:19:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <200701210546.l0L5kO0V008736@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701210546.l0L5kO0V008736@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Jan 20, 2007, at 9:46 PM, spike wrote: > >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > ... >> >> In every generation, unto the furthest star and the deepest depths of >> Time, for as long as that light lasts which began in the human >> species, >> there will be those who care for every sibling of the family >> Sentience. >> Those who help freeze you may not know you, but for your sake they >> have set themselves against Death to shatter the scythe. And >> others of >> that same kind, also shall revive the frozen... Eliezer > > > Thanks Eli, this is eloquent beyond poetry. Elegant and poetic perhaps but likely? I have doubts. Precisely why should we expect some being post Singularity of nature utterly unknowable by us today to choose to reanimate pre-Singularity beings? What if the pre-singularity being would require a near full rewrite to begin to comprehend the world as it had become. Would reanimation of the old self be considered good quite so automatically? For your sake? Just because you are a sentient? Is that how we act now? No? Then why do we have such an assurance that these future beings will act thus? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 21 10:28:17 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:28:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] nh tax evaders In-Reply-To: <200701210333.l0L3XtEd016475@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701210333.l0L3XtEd016475@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <60423FA7-4BB8-4E17-8FDB-3A407469F785@mac.com> The point of this is what exactly? If you ask me the tax code is full of holes worthy of pointing out. However our government is quickly moving beyond the stage of caring much about any legal niceties. So mostly it doesn't look like a very practical thing to do. However, it makes me sick to face the fact that half of my productive life is taken by force to in large part finance things I find abhorrent. Taxation is enslavement. - samantha On Jan 20, 2007, at 7:18 PM, spike wrote: > > Any speculation regarding whether or not Mike Lorrey is holed up > with this > bunch? > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245003,00.html > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 21 10:53:49 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:53:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701201902.l0KJ2sxX024025@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: North Carolina -> Ann Arbor -> Detroit -> Tulsa -> San Francisco -> Boulder Creek -> San Jose so far. Eventually NH for the Free State thing and Panama when it gets too cold in NH or too bad crazy to stay in the US. - samantha On Jan 20, 2007, at 11:02 AM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty > ... >> On 1/20/07, spike wrote: >>> We had a survey a few years ago with the question where are you >>> from. > ... >> >> Thanks. I am a little late to the party. :) > > > Good point, there are a lot of new faces since the old days. We > should > repeat the survey. I am posting from the U.S. of A, more specifically > northern Taxifornia. > > ExIers, where are you from? > > Give the question your own interpretation (where do you live, or > where did > you grow up, or where do you want to live, or where is the place you > go at > newtonmas that you think of as home, for instance) and answer or not > according to your comfort level. The result speaks to both > transparency and > accuracy of online polls. > > Since we first did this question about 8 years ago, there seem to be > fewer > transparency advocates and more privacy fans. Comments on that > comment also > welcome. Mike I am traditionally a big transparency fan, but having > the > baby recently has caused me to rethink that notion. > > {8-] > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From amara at amara.com Sun Jan 21 11:36:52 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:36:52 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? Message-ID: > ExIers, where are you from? I'm from everywhere and nowhere. :-) http://www.amara.com/aboutme/aboutme.html Ciao, 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 Sun Jan 21 12:15:56 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 07:15:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <200701210349.l0L3nVRl008076@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1645.163.1.72.81.1169330218.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200701210349.l0L3nVRl008076@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701210415i14115581m96a8db5436e64e76@mail.gmail.com> > I am 45 years senior to my son. The world changed so much in those 45 years > that most of the values with which I was raised are now wildly > inappropriate. For instance, I was told that the two most important things > for a boy to learn are auto mechanics and self defense. As I recall, the primary values my mother attempted to instill in me were: -- be compassionate to others -- warfare is bad [this was the Vietnam war era; I'm currently 40 yrs old] -- creativity is good -- dare to be different, and mistrust the consensus These seem to have held up reasonably well over time. As for working in odd jobs, which you mentioned: Yes, this was a secondary value that my parents tried to instill in me, but that didn't stick in my mind very well. I argued with them that I'd be better off spending my time accumulating knowledge and skills than working at menial tasks for low pay. However, I did work after school delivering newspapers for a couple years until I saved $400 which (at age 14) I used to purchase an Atari 400 computer. Then I stopped delivering newspapers and started programming ;-) ... -- Ben G From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 12:30:10 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:30:10 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had books and some toys but I also had imagination and creativity. I had imaginary friends that lived in the closet of my bedroom who would come out when nobody was around and play with me (I think they may have been based on Disney or other cartoon characters). But by far the greatest influences on me were what my Dad had in the basement. Dad was a collector -- his father was a chemistry teacher so there were various chemicals around -- he was into electronics so there was tons of old electronics equipment -- tools galore and everything from old pinball machines (that sort of worked) to car engines that didn't work until one fixed them (sort of). Teach your children curiosity and give them the means to explore that. The phase space of biology alone (and all the parts that make it up) is huge and will not be mastered soon. The same is true for nanotechnology. Spike, the next time you rebuild an engine have your son hand you the tools. The next time you go outside to look at a comet take him with you. When someone in your hood throws out a PC or TV or Radio bring it home for him to take apart. Download nanoengineer-1 from Nanorex and let him learn how to use it. If "we" know matter will be as software (if you can think it you can manifest it) then the key things are the imagining part and knowing how to use the parts and tools which are available. Ask questions that get him thinking... How does the washing machine work? Where does electricity come from? What does "cooking" do to the food? Simple stuff to fuel the imagination. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 13:05:41 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:05:41 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/21/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I had books and some toys but I also had imagination and creativity. I had > imaginary friends that lived in the closet of my bedroom who would come out > when nobody was around and play with me (I think they may have been based on > Disney or other cartoon characters). You were lucky! My imaginary friends left to play with the kid down the road. > Ask questions that get him > thinking... How does the washing machine work? Magic? > Where does electricity come from? Out of the socket, obviously. That's why you have to leave the plugs in, so it doesn't leak out. > What does "cooking" do to the food? Makes it go black usually. The dog likes it though. Give him a computer as soon as he knows not to try to eat it or pull it to pieces. With an easy Linux on it, so he doesn't get into bad habits. Problem solved. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 14:36:29 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:36:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: References: <200701210546.l0L5kO0V008736@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0701210636u42b4dbeap56f5229c87129b5b@mail.gmail.com> On 1/21/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > For your sake? Just because you are a sentient? Is that how we act > now? No? Some do, some don't. Then why do we have such an assurance that these future > beings will act thus? > We don't. It would be strange if we did. Assurance is a passive thing, a guarantee that the future will be a certain way no matter what we do or fail to do; in the absence of supernatural powers of divination, how would assurance occur? What we do have, as sentient beings with free will, is the ability to say: This is the sort of future I think is _right_, and - irrespective of how high or low the prior probability may be - I will do my best to help achieve it. I believe Eliezer is advocating that attitude, not passive reliance on assurance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 21 16:27:10 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:27:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070121001251.0379e5a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <200701211627.l0LGRFrj013767@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? > > At 11:36 AM 1/20/2007 -0800, Jef wrote: > > >Transparency is increasingly ineluctable and can be used to one's > >advantage, so I go with the flow. > > The last time the $cientolgy cult knew where I lived they sent a thug to > harass me... Keith Hey Keith, I started rethinking my notions of privacy vs transparency immediately after that day I came up to your house on my bike and Mr. Nuclear Free Zone was "jogging" up and down your street. He had the shorts, he had the T-shirt, but he forgot the shoes part of his costume. By looking at him, one might guess he didn't know what an actual pair of running shoes should look like. There are some damn legitimate reasons for wanting privacy. I don't need it myself. Or didn't until I started hanging out with Keith. {8^D But others associated with me might want privacy for some very good reasons. spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 16:51:01 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:51:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <200701210459.l0L4x8qn008823@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <57894.86.137.247.245.1169351710.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <200701210459.l0L4x8qn008823@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 1/21/07, spike wrote: > > > Ja thanks. Shelly pointed out that I also ignored the notion that many of > the frembryos might have been generated by mothers who are no longer > fertile, so that this frembryo is her only chance to have her own > biological > offspring, which is of greater value than I can ever understand. It is > not > surprising that she would think of that immediately, having been thru the > whole fertility clinic nightmare. Spike, I feel compelled to remind you and Shelly, as I remind my brother and sister-in-law, that this is simply not true. Not unless you are taking an *extremely* strict view of "my biological offspring". We already know this is a very "fuzzy" picture -- as the products of frembryo's are actually reanimates of a cryonic suspension process. There is no continual thread of "life" [1] from mother to frozen embryo to living child. And given the range of adult-child bonding one can see in parents and step-parents to adopted parents one can obviously have greater or lesser attachments and desire to care for children [2] of various degrees of genetic relatedness. (I am waiting for the day when adoption would involve precise genome comparisons for frequencies of similar alleles in the genome. If you select for adopting children with better alleles than yous without your own "bad" alleles and with all the other alleles highly similar the adopted children are *better* than biological children.) The thing keep in mind is that *if* I sequence Spike's genome and *if* I sequence Shelly's genome I can sit you two down in front of a computer and let you mix and match the genes (or I can have a computer do it pseudo-randomly just as nature does during meiosis) so you have a genome sequence combining your genes. And once we have reached the point of attomole DNA synthesis I can produce that DNA sequence for only a few dollars. There is a very aggressive push to $1000/genome DNA sequencing so the costs of an artificial Spike+Shelly genome should be of the order of $2000 + ~$2/new genome. From an information science standpoint, though the new genome would not have been derived from molecules Spike and/or Shelly harvested from food that they ate which in turn were harvested from animals or plants which in turn harvested them from the atmosphere, oceans or soil, the offspring produced from implanting that genome into a cell which in turn was allowed to mature in a natural or artificial womb would be Spike and Shelly's "biological offspring". While women may be able to argue that a significant part of being a "mother" is bearing the child the same is much more difficult for a man to claim with respect to being a "father". Given the technology shifts on the horizon -- designer genomes, designer genomes better than their parents, designer genomes borne or not borne by a pseudo-biological "mother" (or a surrogate or artificial womb) using the term "biological offspring" involves standing on quicksand. Perhaps the main point to make to Shelly is to ask precisely *what* she means by "fertile"? IMO, so long as you have a comb with a hair shafts with cells attached or a toothbrush with cells scraped from her gums or unwashed clothes containing her epithelial cells (one needs her genomic DNA sequence) she is still "fertile". Having children using genomic sequences requires "technologically enhanced fertility" but you have already crossed that bridge. Spike, I hope you do not mind my using you and Shelly as examples here because you have been honest and open about your situation and I would presume to speak for us all about being happy about your good fortune. But you two are also people who are educated and technology literate and would be people who would engage in the discussions which are likely to be taking place over the next decade or two. So I do not have a problem with poking at ones arguments a little bit. Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of this is that "drive" to reproduce is so strong in humans that they will invent technologies that allow them to have "biological" offspring when they would otherwise be unable to do so. One wonders if the drive to defeat death is as strong? [3] Robert 1. I would define "life" as something like common biochemical processes at STP. Once frozen you have a *significant* reduction in standard biochemical processes and are clearly not at STP. 2. Indeed it may be a very subtle aspect of human genomics the degree to which parents will or will not bond to children (be they their own genetic offspring, those of close relatives, or simply human). I could argue that those leaning in the direction of autism or Aspergers may be less likely to form close parent-child bonds. On the other side of the fence one merely has to look at human bonding to cats to understand how humans can bond to *anything*. 3. One has to compare and contrast from the perspective that "reproducing" is something one is *supposed* to be able to do. Living indefinitely is *not* something one is supposed to be able to do. Indeed reproducing and living indefinitely long lives tend to be relatively incompatible from a resource allocation standpoint (though we aren't anywhere near close to the limits yet). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 21 16:51:32 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:51:32 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children > > >... But do develop a fondness for *small* toys. > > When my sisters and I were living on our boat in the 60s, all of our > toys needed to fit into the hanging orange canvas storage unit above our > bunks with dimension approximately: 2ft-6in-6in (length-width-depth). > ... (I know that I would all too easily spoil my kids with > toys.) ... The issue is not the parents. I have actually procured only one toy for my son, a small stuffed tigger. (That was because I like tigger's attitude: woohoo! woohoo!) The issue is my parents, both remarried, which between them represent four grandparents with exactly *one very adored grandchild*. All are doing well and want to give generously to their only grand-descendant. This love often comes out in the form of enormous stuffed animals. The baby ignores them of course, as it is physically impossible for him to play with these absurd devices. If the children had no exposure to television, would they really > _want_ or _need_ all of those toys? Amara You hit it right on. Watch kids at newtonmas. The toys they get are far too *specific*. They get a model backhoe for instance, which can only dig. They get a model dump truck, which can only dump. What kids really want are two things that they can bash together. Boys especially. Watch them, you will see exactly what I mean. It is a window into human nature, an insightful observation into human evolution. The dump truck and the backhoe will break if they bash them together. The geezers (that would be us) interpret such actions as aggressive behavior that must be suppressed, or as a child's way of commenting that he doesn't like the toys. But what we are seeing is simply human nature as it evolved in such a way as to facilitate our survival as a species. A parent with evolution-groknitution (me) knows to hang on to the styrofoam packing material that the toys came in. Let the kids bash those things together. These are non-specific toys, for those styrofoam packaging blocks can be a backhoe, or can be a dump truck, or a boat or a car or a tiger if he imagines it to be so. They are great for bashing things, for the ancient ones don't have a cow when they are used in this way, used properly from the point of view of a kid. Anyone who has ever tried to train a dog knows one must work *with* the dog's evolved or selected instincts. This is why it is easier to get a dog to catch a frisbee or fetch a stick than it is to train him to walk without pulling on his leash. In human society, toy manufacturers have evolved to meet the needs of those who buy the toys, not those who play with them. Result: enormous stuffed animals, action figures, truck models, toys whose function is so specific as to make them practically useless to the child. Real kids want to explore, hurl, bash and beat. They show us unvarnished human nature. Behold and learn. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jan 21 17:14:42 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:14:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Behavior and genetics In-Reply-To: <45B31A54.8010108@ramonsky.com> References: <003801c73d23$91941820$640fa8c0@kevin> <45B31A54.8010108@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070121111405.0458e150@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:46 AM 1/21/2007, AR wrote: >Check out "Synaptic Self" by Joseph LeDoux and google 'epigenetics'. http://www.cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux/synapticself/ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 17:20:22 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:20:22 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike, Regarding "crashing toys" -- its part of the learning process. Would you know how to rebuild an engine if you hadn't at least once cross-threaded a bolt? Would you know how to cook if you hadn't burnt something? I don't want to think about the number of times I learned that soldering irons when plugged in are hot or that too little solder and too much solder both have their problems... Even when we are adults there are still times that we make mistakes... [1] Robert 1. http://thrillingwonder.blogspot.com/2006/11/biggest-and-hungriest-machines.html (scroll about 1/3 of the way down the page). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jan 21 17:28:27 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:28:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <32876.72.236.103.215.1169400507.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > The issue is my parents, both remarried, which between > them represent four grandparents with exactly *one very adored grandchild*. > All are doing well and want to give generously to their only > grand-descendant. This love often comes out in the form of enormous stuffed > animals. The baby ignores them of course, as it is physically impossible > for him to play with these absurd devices. Been there, what a problem! Suggestion: request donations to a prep-school/college/graduate-school fund until at least the child is old enough to really appreciate certain carefully selected toys. It's not like the child is lacking for *anything*. ;) You and Shelley will go without food before Isaac is actually in want. Boxes are good toys for little ones. They come in all sizes and can play many parts. Bashing toys together is certainly something children enjoy. Boxes are pretty safe. And they're not terribly loud when they crash together. If they break they're not likely to injure anybody. And if they get chewed on that's not the end of the world either. ;) It's very good to see extropians dealing with this kind of thing. Best regards, MB From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 17:20:12 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:20:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > ExIers, where are you from? Born and raised in the suburbs of the San Francisco Bay Area, currently living in the Ohio River Valley area. -gts From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jan 21 17:10:39 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:10:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <45B2FB75.40208@pobox.com> References: <200701210459.l0L4x8qn008823@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <45B2FB75.40208@pobox.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070121111004.0458e468@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 11:34 PM 1/20/2007, Eli wrote: >In every generation, unto the furthest star and the deepest depths of >Time, for as long as that light lasts which began in the human species, >there will be those who care for every sibling of the family Sentience. > Those who help freeze you may not know you, but for your sake they >have set themselves against Death to shatter the scythe. And others of >that same kind, also shall revive the frozen. Lovely. 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 21 18:10:47 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:10:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <32876.72.236.103.215.1169400507.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <32876.72.236.103.215.1169400507.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070121121006.024d4428@satx.rr.com> At 12:28 PM 1/21/2007 -0500, MB wrote: >You and Shelley will go >without food before Isaac is actually in want. Yeah, but then Spike will go without food anyway. :) Damien Broderick From jonkc at att.net Sun Jan 21 18:36:27 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:36:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Black like me? (was: ExI profiled?) References: <200701181532.l0IFW4nP019999@andromeda.ziaspace.com><304520.80545.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118141044.0240b9c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003801c73d8b$413417f0$68044e0c@MyComputer> >I think the astute reader would get a sense. As I recall, only two or three >black folks have posted on ExI chat (or its earlier incarnation) for any > length of time since the mid-'90s Well Damien, I've posted to this list hundreds of times since the mid- '90s; do you have any reason to think I'm not black? I don't believe I've ever mentioned my race and I'm not about to start now. John K Clark From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jan 21 19:00:12 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:00:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070121121006.024d4428@satx.rr.com> References: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <32876.72.236.103.215.1169400507.squirrel@main.nc.us> <7.0.1.0.2.20070121121006.024d4428@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <32960.72.236.103.220.1169406012.squirrel@main.nc.us> > At 12:28 PM 1/21/2007 -0500, MB wrote: > >>You and Shelley will go >>without food before Isaac is actually in want. > > Yeah, but then Spike will go without food anyway. :) > His posts have always reminded me of my older brother.... and now I learn that perhaps beans from a tin is a perfectly acceptable supper, they don't even have to be heated? I have a nephew of the same sort. My brother and my nephew can both still wear their clothing from college. :/ Actually, from late highschool. Even though I don't know spike, I can't help but feel affection for him, he sounds like my family. I am not like that. I love food! :) I even like to cook ;) - because I like to eat... Regards, MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jan 21 19:17:57 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:17:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: References: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <33019.72.236.103.220.1169407077.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > http://thrillingwonder.blogspot.com/2006/11/biggest-and-hungriest-machines.html > (scroll about 1/3 of the way down the page). > Thanks for this, Robert! A friend and I had a long email discussion on Bagger 288 about 10 years ago, and there were very few pictures available on line. Amazing. Regards, MB From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Jan 21 19:38:46 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:38:46 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: References: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1474.163.1.72.81.1169408326.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> While I think kids tend to get too many dolls, I have found some that I couldn't resist giving to my niece: a two meter long plush python is (I think) a good way of teaching that snakes aren't bad, and more recently she got an Epstein-Barr virus from http://www.giantmicrobes.com/ ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/333996720/ ) which hopefully will be useful in a few years when I plan to teach her the realities of biological life. She also liked my own Mars pillow-globe (see http://www.1worldglobes.com/huggamars.htm ). Might be a good way of learning geography. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 21 19:43:00 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:43:00 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Black like me? (was: ExI profiled?) In-Reply-To: <003801c73d8b$413417f0$68044e0c@MyComputer> References: <200701181532.l0IFW4nP019999@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <304520.80545.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118141044.0240b9c0@satx.rr.com> <003801c73d8b$413417f0$68044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070121133944.0246b0a0@satx.rr.com> At 01:36 PM 1/21/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: >I've posted to this list hundreds of times since the mid- '90s; >do you have any reason to think I'm not black? I'd be astonished. But then I was astonished when I first learned Samuel R. Delany (the great sf writer) was black, born in Harlem, from one of the great "Harlem Renaissance" families. I was equally astonished to learn he was gay. And *flabbergasted* to learn he was majorly dyslectic. Damien Broderick From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jan 21 20:14:38 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:14:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <1474.163.1.72.81.1169408326.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <200701211651.l0LGpbMn028333@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <1474.163.1.72.81.1169408326.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <33167.72.236.103.220.1169410478.squirrel@main.nc.us> > While I think kids tend to get too many dolls, I have found some that I > couldn't resist giving to my niece: a two meter long plush python is (I > think) a good way of teaching that snakes aren't bad, [...] Whee! Another snake lover? :) For snow play, try making an Arctic Ice Python. ... article here: http://coloherp.org/cb-news/archive/humor/IcePython.php Better yet is finding some nice person who has pet snakes and doing some hands on introductions. :) Regards, MB snake keeper of Pantera, Peton, and LittleSnake (2 Python regius and one Elaphe obsoleta) From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Jan 21 20:34:43 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:34:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children Message-ID: <33204173.852131169411683853.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> MB wrote: >Been there, what a problem! Suggestion: request donations to a >prep-school/college/graduate-school fund until at least the child is old >enough to >really appreciate certain carefully selected toys. We tried that. The grandparents (3 sets of them) sometimes oblige. Sometimes not. >Boxes are good toys for little ones. They come in all sizes and can play many >parts. >Bashing toys together is certainly something children enjoy. Boxes are pretty >safe. >And they're not terribly loud when they crash together. If they break they're >not >likely to injure anybody. And if they get chewed on that's not the end of the >world >either. ;) Absolutely! And wrapping paper, too. It falls into "some things never change." It's hard to chew on a virtual box. ;-) >It's very good to see extropians dealing with this kind of thing. It is. For my 2 cents, I'm in the "old-fashioned" camp. You can always learn certain intellectual skills, like computer skills, in school and later childhood. But imaginitive skills are different. I've seen some deeply literal children come from these deeply literal toys. Can't play "Batman" without the "Batman" doll. Can only play Star Wars with the Annikin action figure. Not Batman. Who are these kids??? [Actually, I know. They have deeply literal parents. They're also part of the generation birthed by people who somehow think they were deprived. And have to keep up with the Joneses. (Not you, Spike!) And can't be bothered really caring what their kids play with and how it will affect them, as long as it looks good. And yes, I absolutely agree, they are buying the toys for themselves. To feed their gaping, consumerist maw that will never be filled, because they're looking for an emotional fix with a material possession. Quite a species, ain't we?! Okay, I'm done now.] All the books and music (again, appropriate) they want. Almost no television - maybe an hour total a month of commercial broadcasting. We do watch appropriate movies on disc, and non-fiction documentaries. No (or few) branded toys in our house. Closely monitored and rationed time on the computer, although they both love Runescape, along with their friends. And since I know what I know, I know that virtural world skills WILL come in handy when society is split between the physical and vitural, so I allow it. But not a lot. They pick it up fast and they've still got their imaginations to develop. Lots of things you can build with. My kids have my own set of Creative Playthings wooden blocks, bought in 1965. My son (10) still uses them in conjunction with his Lego Mindstorm projects! Those Mindstorms are fun things. For those of us who don't have the Mr. Fixit skills of a Robert or a Spike, it gives them an opportunity to design and make things that do stuff. Without us wondering what the hell they're doing and will the house burn down... {BTW, I wanted to thank Alejandro for posting the Mindstorm Autofabrik! My son's head exploded! He's been watching it over and over, to see how they did it. Somehow, with our limited parts, I don't think we'll manage to replicate it... ;-) ) Physical stuff: bikes, skateboards, skates, sports equipment. My kids fell in love with Badminton when I brought home a cheap set from CostCo. A place (preferably outside) they can call their own: We have a yard, so my folks gave them a great jungle gym set from Cedarworks of Maine. Awesome thing. We call it "the condo." It's their fort, clubhouse, swings, etc. But it could be the cardboard box the new fridge came in. Or a patch of open dirt amongst the shrubs. We've did those, too. Also, kids will guide you soon enough. My son is car crazy. Lego cars, car models, photos and posters of cars are everywhere. He says he wants to become a car engineer and designer. So you feed the passion. He goes to car shows, learns at the feet of my husband's best friend, who is a car 'expert' (the kind who builds an experimental engine in his living room in his spare time...) I spend time showing him alternative fuel sources, radical designs and encourage him to think outside the box. Now watch. He'll become a lawyer. :-( My daughter (8) has dolls, dollhouses, musical instuments, etc. Loves those things and has a very rich, imaginitive life with them. She's inherited some of mine, but to be fair, she actually plays with them. Mine sat in my room, mostly ignored, in my mother's failed attempt to feminize my interests (except I liked to build sarcophegei with the above blocks, mummify Barbie in toilet paper and do burial rituals with Skipper as the High Priest(ess); and the dollhouses I treated like real interior design projects! Wallpaper, flooring, molding, paint, upholstery -- I loved that!). My kids love boardgames and card games. It not only teaches them game skills, it teaches them to play well with others in their physical proximity, which video/computer games don't do. Only watch out playing Texas Hold 'em with real money with a 10 year old. He'll clean you out faster than you can say Kenny Rogers... PJ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 20:39:55 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:39:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1/21/07, gts wrote: > > > ExIers, where are you from? > > Born and raised in the suburbs of the San Francisco Bay Area, currently > living in the Ohio River Valley area. Ok, Amara I can understand, dust is everywhere (and nowhere after you use the vacuum). Growing up on a boat, migrating around the world, you are lucky if you can catch her in a solar sail the size of the moon. But I do not understand the SFB to Ohio migration path. My vector is BOS->NYC<->LA->SF<->NYC->SEA<->MOS->BOS. But as those of you who know me know there are a lot of side excursions. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Sun Jan 21 20:24:39 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:24:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Subject: Re: ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B3CC07.4030602@lineone.net> Location: Dark side of the moon Ethnicity: Mostly human Age: 9000 (units unspecified) Sex: Yes Any more questions? ben zaiboc From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Jan 21 20:44:59 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:44:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children Message-ID: <24045013.852701169412299167.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Ben Goertzel wrote: >As I recall, the primary values my mother attempted to instill in me were: > >-- be compassionate to others >-- warfare is bad [this was the Vietnam war era; I'm currently 40 yrs old] >-- creativity is good >-- dare to be different, and mistrust the consensus > >These seem to have held up reasonably well over time. Your mother and mine went to different schools together. :-) PJ From benboc at lineone.net Sun Jan 21 20:38:37 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:38:37 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Subject: frozen in fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B3CF4D.8070806@lineone.net> Oops, sorry, didn't read Anders' reply before firing mine off. ben zaiboc From benboc at lineone.net Sun Jan 21 20:35:13 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:35:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B3CE81.3020606@lineone.net> Damien Broderick wrote: Anders wrote: > >Ah, kids are such ethical problems! Trolleys > >running down branching tracks, brains in jars and frozen embryos in > >burning IVF labs are so much more manageable! >That last one caught my attention. Is this a current ethicsbiz >gedanken? How many frozen embryos would you need to "save" at the >cost of your own life? Are you morally obliged to perish in the fire >if you can throw out (to safety) no more than one poor shivering >blastocyst, which probably won't implant successfully anyway given >current tech? If not, how many do you need to save? I like this >reductio. I don't know if this is what Anders is referring to, but i've used that scenario in a question about the 'Pro-life' (what a misnomer!) attitude, posed as a dilemma involving a burning lab, an unconscious scientist about to be burnt to death, and a canister full of frozen embryos. You can only save one, which would it be? Some people actually think this is an ethical dilemma. ben zaiboc From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Jan 21 20:52:13 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:52:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Funny! Message-ID: <22999163.852951169412732989.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> http://www.getafirstlife.com/ PJ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 21:13:10 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:13:10 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <33204173.852131169411683853.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <33204173.852131169411683853.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: This is the best thread in ages.... I want to visit everyone and "play" with their children. Not "that" way (for those of you who have been watching too much prime time TV), in the way I can "trim"-tab their minds. Very very hard to do. Though the new awareness that Anders has a niece brings lots of thoughts to mind. (No, no, no, we can't let her grow up in that European "straitjacket") (Of course one must balance this in that he would have to visit stateside to spend some time with my nephews. Connor & Philip please say hello to Anders. He is from Sweden or more generally Europe where they have some very strange ideas.) The mind is trying to construct itself so it is seeking out new directions, new frontiers, to boldly go (opps, no, that sounds like a commercial)... So the mind is naturally going to explore the complete phase space (it knows nothing that says "this" is the best vector). Parents are tasked with trying to get said mind to explore "useful" or at least "survival oriented" phase space. Extropic parents are tasked with getting said mind to explore a productive phase space. Indeed that might be a key distinction between non-extropic and extropic parents -- is your child focused on "surviving" or "producing"? Obviously to be a good producer one has to survive but I would argue that being adept at producing has distinct advantages over simply surviving. It is a delicate balance for parents to strike. Enable survival. Promote productivity. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jan 21 21:36:36 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:36:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <33204173.852131169411683853.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <33204173.852131169411683853.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <33252.72.236.103.249.1169415396.squirrel@main.nc.us> Another thing my kids enjoyed *thoroughly* was the "dress-up box" which had old clothing in it... often fancy dress. One can frequently buy such stuff at thrift shops and kids will make it be whatever they want. I have photos of groups of kids in our old clothing and various dress-ups. What a blast! :) Wigs and hats are good toys. When my son went to kindergarten the teacher commented to me that he was the only boy who didn't mind wearing a "dress" from the dress-up box there - for him it was a king's or wizard's or magic robe. She was delighted that at least one boy was not so shackled by gender consciousness that he couldn't even pretend. He did have mini action figures, and there were some little female dolls - miniature barbie type dolls - similar size for mini action figures. They were very cheap and we bought them to increase the scope of the various soldier action figures. We grownups called them "the camp followers".... Regards, MB From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 21:36:55 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:36:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <45B3CE81.3020606@lineone.net> References: <45B3CE81.3020606@lineone.net> Message-ID: On 1/21/07, ben wrote: I don't know if this is what Anders is referring to, but i've used that > scenario in a question about the 'Pro-life' (what a misnomer!) attitude, > posed as a dilemma involving a burning lab, an unconscious scientist > about to be burnt to death, and a canister full of frozen embryos. You > can only save one, which would it be? Ok, this thread has become much too nested to understand who said what. So I will simply offer an observation. I was recently sitting in the cafeteria at the Harvard Science Center (not so unusual)... but as cafeterias at such institutions are prone to be two undergrads(?) at the table next to me were debating a moral delima (apparently an assignment) regarding a train running down a track and depending upon the decisions of the conductor would produce a net savings of lives "on the train" or lives in the towns in front of the train. (It involved something like whether or not the conductor should derail the train I think). The moral debate (as I overheard it) tended to revolve around whether ones loyalties should be to the passengers on the train or to the towns people. This is a classic "kill more people now" vs "save more people later" vs. "I am obligated to fullfill my purpose" debate. Very slippery. We are once again back to "Can one suspend the copy provided its reality is on a backup tape?". Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Jan 21 21:59:14 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:59:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children Message-ID: PJ: >My daughter (8) has dolls, dollhouses, musical instuments, etc. >Loves those >things and has a very rich, imaginitive life with them. >She's inherited some >of mine, but to be fair, she actually plays >with them. Ask PJ about her daughter's chemistry experiments .......... :-) Amara From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Jan 21 22:17:22 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:17:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children Message-ID: <17849621.850011169417842684.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Robert wrote: >I want to visit everyone and "play" with their children.? Not "that" way (for those of you who have been watching too much prime time TV), in the way I can "trim"-tab their minds.? I don't know, Robert... That makes me nervous, too! ;-) >Very very hard to do.? Not really. Parents do it all the time, whether they mean to or not. We're consciously or unconsciously directing them towards or away from things. "Grow up and be like me" vs. "Grow up and DON'T be like me" Some of those are literal statements and some they gather on their own from your existence as example. As a parent, it's our job to be conscious of what we do. >It is a delicate balance for parents to strike.? Enable survival.? Promote productivity. Again, not so difficult. It's called teaching by example. Many of us have said before that our own parents inculcated certain beliefs in what it would take to be productive. Work hard, etc. It's as simple as just telling them what you're doing and why. If you are productive, and they see the upside to productivity, odds are they'll be productive. Unless they are resolutely wired not to be and no amount of 'trim-tabbing' is going to work. I assume that the Extroparents are doing that by being Extropes. PJ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 22:24:39 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:24:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would be interested in the "chemistry experiments" that one did on a boat. The chemistry "experiments" that resulted from unmanaged relocation of chemical reagents from one part of my parents house to another part (without "due diligence") may have subsequently resulted in the burning of the house. (Bradbury's and "fire" -- a long long history...). I do not deny that learning chemistry is an important part of any child's education. However some of the paths (such as my father's assembly of significant quantities of gunpowder to blow up tree stumps) are no longer available. But the materials for the production of ammonium nitrogen triiodide were around in the basement... don't ask... But Amara's point is well taken. Dolls do not generally produce an expertise in chemistry. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Sun Jan 21 22:31:44 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:31:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children Message-ID: <21358585.850541169418703971.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >Ask PJ about her daughter's chemistry experiments .......... >:-) How true! She's got a fascinating, multi-purpose brain. Both creative and analytical. And so deeply empathetic, sometimes I think I'm living with the chick from "Star Trek - Next Generation." Loves Science. Gave Amara, Jef and Stuart quite a lecture on her ongoing chemistry explorations, both in and out of school. But at least they missed the actual sourcing and mixing of ingredients/elements in Mommy's china... Yuck... She's also lucky to have a best friend's mom who is a biology prof. at Pepperdine, who comes in and teaches her class, too. She's a great role model for girls at an impressionable age. And it's not like I'm not writing about this stuff all the time. "Mommy, explain 'nanotechnology...'" PJ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 22:40:13 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:40:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <17849621.850011169417842684.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <17849621.850011169417842684.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: On 1/21/07, pjmanney wrote: > [big snip] > I assume that the Extroparents are doing that by being Extropes. Yes, of course, and the converstation has encouraged me to make a call to my father and strong-arm a Lego mindstorms system out of him for his grandchildren. (Shame on me for not doing this previously.) The debate revolved around whether the grandchildren are potential engineers. One does not know whether they are engineers until one gives them something to engineer with! I could engineer my "imaginary" friends in the closet until the cows come home at night but it only really counts if one can manifest it in reality. (Are all of you watching... Am I influencing your thought patterns, i.e. engineering how you think? Of course managing children and managing the ExICh list and managing cats have a lot in common...) R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Jan 21 18:27:01 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:27:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Neural bottleneck found that thwarts multi-tasking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070121132350.039f7b88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> [It's been interesting lately finding things on one mailing list that should be shared on others. KH] Neural bottleneck found that thwarts multi-tasking Ren? Marois and Paul Dux Many people think they can safely drive while talking on their cell phones. Vanderbilt neuroscientists Paul E. Dux and Ren? Marois have found that when it comes to handling two things at once, your brain, while fast, isn't that fast. "Why is it that with our incredibly complex and sophisticated brain, with 100 billion neurons processing information at rates of up to a thousand times a second, we still have such a crippling inability to do two tasks at once?" Marois, associate professor of Psychology, asked. "For example, what is it about our brain that gives us such a hard time at being able to drive and talk on a cell phone simultaneously?" Researchers have long thought that a central "bottleneck" exists in the brain that prevents us from doing two things at once. Dux and Marois are the first to identify the regions of the brain responsible for this bottleneck, by examining patterns of neural activity over time. Their results were published in the Dec. 21 issue of Neuron. "In our everyday lives, we seem to complete so many cognitive tasks effortlessly. However, we experience severe limitations when we try to do even two simple tasks at once, such as pressing a button when a visual stimulus appears and saying a word when a sound is presented. This is known as dual-task interference," Dux, a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Psychology, said. "We were interested in trying to understand these limitations and in finding where in the brain this bottleneck might be taking place." The research is particularly timely, as additional states consider banning the use of cell phones while driving. "While we are driving, we are bombarded with visual information. We might also be talking to passengers or talking on the phone," Marois said. "Our new research offers neurological evidence that the brain cannot effectively do two things at once. People think if they are using a headset with their cell phone while driving they are safe, but they're not because they are still doing two cognitively demanding tasks at once." Identifying the information bottleneck responsible for this dual-task limitation required the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, an imaging technology that reveals the brain areas active in a given mental task by registering changes in oxygenated blood concentration in these regions. While fMRI is an excellent tool for identifying a particular area in the brain involved in a given task, it generally provides limited information about how that area responds over time. To overcome this limitation, Dux and Marois rapidly sampled brain activity using fMRI while subjects were performing two demanding tasks. Evaluation of the data produced by this rapid sampling method allowed them to characterize the temporal pattern of activity in specific brain areas. The two tasks consisted of pressing the appropriate computer key in response to hearing one of eight possible sounds and uttering an appropriate syllable in response to seeing one of eight possible images. Different senses and motor responses were enlisted in order to ensure that any interference between the two tasks was not specific to a particular sensory or motor modality, but instead originated at a central information-processing bottleneck. The results revealed that the central bottleneck was caused by the inability of the lateral frontal and prefrontal cortex, and also the superior frontal cortex, to process the two tasks at once. Both areas have been shown in previous experiments to play a critical role in cognitive control. "We determined these brain regions responded to tasks irrespective of the senses involved, they were engaged in selecting the appropriate response, and, most importantly, they showed 'queing' of neural activity--the neural response to the second task was postponed until the response to the first was completed," Dux said. "Neural activity seemed to be delayed for the second task when the two tasks were presented nearly simultaneously - within 300 milliseconds of each other," Marois said. "If individuals have a second or more between tasks, we did not see this delay. "This temporal delay is the essence of dual-task interference for tasks that require actions. By using time-resolved fMRI, we can see its signature in the brain," he continued. "These findings allow us to really now focus on this set of brain areas and to understand why these areas cannot process two tasks at once." The researchers are interested in further exploring what is happening in the bottleneck to slow performance and believe the work may have future implications for people performing complex tasks. "It may be possible to look to the sort of tasks people are going to have to do in a very complex environment, such as flying a plane, and find out under what circumstances these tasks may be less vulnerable to dual-task interference," Dux added. For the record, neither Marois nor Dux use their cell phones while driving. "I'm Australian, and it's illegal there, so I'm trained not to," Dux said. "Even so, I would never do it. Dual-task costs can be up to a second, and that's a long time when you're traveling at 60 miles per hour." Source: Vanderbilt University http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/vu-nbf011807.php From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 21 22:35:29 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:35:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <32960.72.236.103.220.1169406012.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <200701212248.l0LMm603024821@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children > > > At 12:28 PM 1/21/2007 -0500, MB wrote: ... > > > > Yeah, but then Spike will go without food anyway. :) Ja, food is optional to a large extent. Eat light, live long. > >... perhaps beans from a tin is a perfectly acceptable supper... Beans from a tin is probably more nutritious than the typical supper. >... they don't even have to be heated? ... Heated schmeated. Heat ruins food. Example: sushi. Best stuff you can put in your face. No cooking allowed. >... My brother and my nephew can both still > wear their clothing from college. :/ Actually, from late highschool... Middle high school for me. I can prove it: kept a couple pairs of bell bottoms from those days, to demonstrate what a geek I am. WAS I mean, what a geek I was. Back then. Those pants have plenty of room in them still. > Even though I don't know spike, I can't help but feel affection for him, > he sounds like my family....Regards, MB Thanks MB. Next you are in the hood the sushi is on me. {8-] spike From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sun Jan 21 22:22:22 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:22:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B3E79E.1050303@mydruthers.com> Robert wrote: > My vector is BOS->NYC<->LA->SF<->NYC->SEA<->MOS->BOS. If we can list the trace with minimal commentary, I'm in. OR <-> CA (6 Years) -> JP (6 Years) -> VA (4 Years) -> MA (8 Years, B.S.) -> CA (22+ Years) Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 23:01:38 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:01:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] ExI profiled? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5366105b0701211501r24f00840n9d44f9398e30aa89@mail.gmail.com> 16:59 Sunday, 21 January 2007 On 1/21/07, Amara Graps wrote: > > ExIers, where are you from? > Other attempts at social mapping, The Transhumanists map at Frappr.com. http://www.frappr.com/?a=constellation_map&mapid=116956 And me personally, http://beta.plazes.com/user/JayDugger Distance is dead; location is lively. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From sentience at pobox.com Sun Jan 21 23:20:43 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:20:43 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: References: <200701210546.l0L5kO0V008736@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <45B3F54B.8040703@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Elegant and poetic perhaps but likely? I have doubts. Precisely why > should we expect some being post Singularity of nature utterly > unknowable by us today to choose to reanimate pre-Singularity beings? If the future is *utterly* unknowable you might as well write it over with random noise. That's what a maximum-entropy ignorance prior means. If the future is *utterly* unknowable, there's no point in wanting it to be full of the descendants of humanity, rather than lifeless stars shining until they go out. If the future is not utterly unknowable, and we have any part in shaping it - if there is meaning to our lives - then empathy and sympathy are surely one of the most important things of all to preserve. They may change form, but I *choose* - for I know of no way for a nice future to come into existence, except by choices we make along the way - that they *must* be preserved. > What if the pre-singularity being would require a near full rewrite to > begin to comprehend the world as it had become. Would reanimation of > the old self be considered good quite so automatically? Meh, so it takes a few thousand years to grow up, whatever. > For your sake? Just because you are a sentient? Is that how we act > now? It's how I act. It's not universal but I'm not exactly a unique specimen either, Samantha. > No? Then why do we have such an assurance that these future > beings will act thus? Assurance? No. I *choose* that future beings will act thus. I've made my decision - now I just have to implement it. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 21 23:26:06 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:26:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <24045013.852701169412299167.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <200701212326.l0LNQEKF028615@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Ben Goertzel wrote: > >As I recall, the primary values my mother attempted to instill in me > were: > > > >-- be compassionate to others > >-- warfare is bad [this was the Vietnam war era; I'm currently 40 yrs > old] > >-- creativity is good > >-- dare to be different, and mistrust the consensus > > > >These seem to have held up reasonably well over time. Yes, we are talking two different things here. The list you gave are ethics. I do not expect ethics* to change much over the centuries. But when I asked about values, what I meant was what are the things we should be teaching our children are of value to do with one's life? Here is an example that has to do with children. You probably saw the Toy Story movies. If not, they are a hoot. (Each one is a hoot? They are both hoots?) Think for a moment about the values that are in those movies. There was a lot there, if you think it over. For instance: 1. The evil wicked brat next door always "broke" his toys, by which they mean he experimented in "bizarre" ways, such as putting a doll head on a mechanical spider, and other such horrors. He wanted to tape Buzz Lightyear to a bottle rocket and launch him into space. The good kid just wanted to play nice with his toys. Well hell. Experimentation is cool. Buzz was after all a spaceman, so why not put him on a rocket? That doll head on a spider body, well, if you had a choice, wouldn't it be kinda cool to have eight appendages instead of the usual five. Uh FOUR, I mean of course, four. Ahem. 2. In the second Toy Story, the toy collector was the evil wicked antagonist, against which the toys rebelled, for they wanted to be owned and loved by one single child. (awww, how sweet). But both of these are examples of values, not ethics. It is better to treat the toys "nice" than to experiment and change them. It is better to keep the toys away from the guy who wanted to display, and perhaps (gasp) make MONEY off of them. So what I am asking about is not ethics, which are pretty straightforward after all this time, but rather values, which change a lot depending on the times. spike *I can think of one ethical principle which is entirely new and important to teach to children today: it is immoral and unethical to buy *anything* from a spammer. One should avoid all products that are advertised at no cost to the seller, at the expense of others. From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Jan 21 23:54:17 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:54:17 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070118160619.023e7990@satx.rr.com> References: <380-22007141819435857@M2W004.mail2web.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118160619.023e7990@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <51909.86.137.247.245.1169423657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: >>The existence of one active thread does not preclude the existence of >>other active threads. > > But oddly enough, it does seem to. Especially in the absence of a few > quite different threads already in play. I suppose it's a bit like > two or three people loudly picking nits in the middle of a dinner > party, it seems to dry up the rest of the conversations and other > people tend to tighten their lips and leave early. It *shouldn't* > work that way in cyberspace, especially among intellectuals > accustomed to the seminar room, but we're creatures of habit and the > social body... Your comment got me to analyse a bit of mailing list data rather throughly, producing the following result: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2007/01/competing_threads.html At least in the case of that mailing list I did not see any evidence for thread competition. Maybe it happens here anyway, maybe it is more a form of attention competition or maybe just availability bias. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jan 22 00:08:57 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:08:57 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52003.86.137.247.245.1169424537.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: > But Amara's point is well taken. Dolls do not generally produce an > expertise in chemistry. My birthday gift to my niece will actually be yet another doll, one that might be good for chemistry: http://www.philosophersguild.com/index.lasso?page_mode=Product_Detail&item=0296 She already has Plato (he likes to drive her big yellow tractor). But I can hardly wait till I get a chance to show her the vinegar-bicarbonate reaction in the kitchen. Not to mention doing electrolysis. Another fun game I have started to play with her is association games: I say something and throw her the Mars pillow, she responds with the next item in the series and throws it back. 1-2-3-4-5-..., A-B-C-D-... are obvious. But I plan to add a few others, like alpha-beta-gamma-... and maybe hydrogen-helium-lithium-... I love being the crazy uncle. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 22 00:20:32 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:20:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: <51909.86.137.247.245.1169423657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.s e> References: <380-22007141819435857@M2W004.mail2web.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118160619.023e7990@satx.rr.com> <51909.86.137.247.245.1169423657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070121181454.02455158@satx.rr.com> At 12:54 AM 1/22/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: >t of mailing list data rather >throughly, producing the following result: >http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2007/01/competing_threads.html >At least in the case of that mailing list I did not see any evidence for >thread competition. Maybe it happens here anyway Will be equally fascinating to see exi-chat treated this way! What about numbers of individual posters? My hunch is that during frenzies such as the dreaded g*n vortex, there was a rising number of posts in a few interrelated threads from two or three vociferous loons^H^H^H^H^Hindividuals. During such fits, I'd guess cooler heads first tried the distraction tactic of enticing alternative topics, but probably got tired and fell silent for a while until the fires were doused. Damien Broderick From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jan 22 00:21:12 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:21:12 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: References: <45B3CE81.3020606@lineone.net> Message-ID: <52091.86.137.247.245.1169425272.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: > I was recently sitting in the cafeteria at the Harvard Science Center (not > so unusual)... but as cafeterias at such institutions are prone to be two > undergrads(?) at the table next to me were debating a moral delima > (apparently an assignment) regarding a train running down a track and > depending upon the decisions of the conductor would produce a net savings > of > lives "on the train" or lives in the towns in front of the train. Here it is usually stated as the "trolley problem", where pulling a lever saves some people at the expense of someone else. There is a hillarious parody of this kind of thought experiment at http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm - after one year in Oxford I agree with the comment below the text. BTW, the trolley problem has some interesting neuroethical complications. In the case of pulling a lever most people (after some agonizing) end up saving the many at the expense of the few, a utilitarian approach. But change the problem to that you are standing on top of a bridge and see the trolley run down the track. You can either push a very fat man down onto the tracks (he will reliably stop the trolley but will die; you are too small to have any effect if you sacrifice yourself) or do nothing as the trolley runs into a group of people. In this case most people actually do not save the many. Joshua Greene imaged the brains of people dealing with this kind of problem, and could see more activation in amygdala and other emotional systems and less in frontal lobe working memory systems when the moral problem got more personal: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/ This has led to a fun neuroethical debate as Peter Singer has launched a general attack on "moral intuitions" as being irrational, and more or less only the utilitarian consideration as rational based on this. Some of our local neuroethicists disagree. Everybody are now busy writing papers refuting each other. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 22 00:28:42 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:28:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <200701212326.l0LNQEKF028615@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike wrote: > Yes, we are talking two different things here. The list you > gave are ethics. I do not expect ethics* to change much over > the centuries. But when I asked about values, what I meant > was what are the things we should be teaching our children > are of value to do with one's life? I'm repeatedly enticed into discussions of alchemical ethics, of which there is an abundance since compared to physics, ethical thought is still at the pre-enlightenment stage. Just as with physics, we can expect to see increasing *convergence* and refinement of our knowledge of ethical decision-making effective over increasing scope, with increasing *divergence* and variety in its manifestations. > *I can think of one ethical principle which is entirely new > and important to teach to children today: it is immoral and > unethical to buy *anything* from a spammer. One should avoid > all products that are advertised at no cost to the seller, at > the expense of others. Spike, I would suggest that you've put forth an ethical rule, rather than a principle. The deeper and more general principle has to do with reciprocity and positive-sum interaction leading to mutual growth. Oh, for a primer teaching our children ethical prototypes based on evolutionary psychology, game-theory and complex adaptive systems for the promotion of human values! - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 22 00:55:26 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:55:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <52091.86.137.247.245.1169425272.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Anders wrote: > Here it is usually stated as the "trolley problem", where > pulling a lever saves some people at the expense of someone > else. There is a hillarious parody of this kind of thought > experiment at http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm > - after one year in Oxford I agree with the comment below the text. > > BTW, the trolley problem has some interesting neuroethical > complications. > In the case of pulling a lever most people (after some > agonizing) end up saving the many at the expense of the few, > a utilitarian approach. But change the problem to that you > are standing on top of a bridge and see the trolley run down > the track. You can either push a very fat man down onto the > tracks (he will reliably stop the trolley but will die; you > are too small to have any effect if you sacrifice yourself) > or do nothing as the trolley runs into a group of people. In > this case most people actually do not save the many. > > Joshua Greene imaged the brains of people dealing with this > kind of problem, and could see more activation in amygdala > and other emotional systems and less in frontal lobe working > memory systems when the moral problem got more personal: > http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/ > This has led to a fun neuroethical debate as Peter Singer has > launched a general attack on "moral intuitions" as being > irrational, and more or less only the utilitarian > consideration as rational based on this. Some of our local > neuroethicists disagree. Everybody are now busy writing > papers refuting each other. It's another example that our ethical thinking is still in the pre-enlightenment phase, full of superstition and based on strongly held but unfounded beliefs. We've got people claiming morality is handed down by God, while the more enlightened among us, for centuries now, argue the fine points of ethics as a subclass of aesthetics (which of course it is, but that's not sufficient for understanding.) We've got better tools now, such that we can ask and understand *why* and *how* some objects are considered more beautiful than others, some actions considered more moral than others. But because the subject remains so rarified for most of us, we still turn to the alchemists for guidance. As for the trolley problem, there is no "right" answer, and utilitarian and consequentialist approaches fail for this very reason leaving people with paradox. But if one is brave and unorthodox enough to apply evolutionary psychology and a bit of game theory to the problem, one might understand why and how this behavior came to be, and in very rational terms. It's difficult to imagine the evolution of cooperation without the evolution of a deep compunction against utilitarian sacrifice of one's neighbor, given an individual's limited context of awareness of the extended consequences. Of course one tends to play it close and play it safe, and this keeps the advancement of cooperative growth within the viable range over evolutionary time. However, while the game's the same, the playing field is changing, and we'd better update our tools to play this game effectively. - Jef From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 01:11:40 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:11:40 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <52091.86.137.247.245.1169425272.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <45B3CE81.3020606@lineone.net> <52091.86.137.247.245.1169425272.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 1/22/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Here it is usually stated as the "trolley problem", [snip] > BTW, the trolley problem has some interesting neuroethical complications. > [snip] I don't know whether to be more aghast at the fact that this seems to have migrated into a contemporary ethical problem from Oxford to Harvard (don't distribute ones refuse unless one knows how to clean it up!) or "educational systems should distribute tradeoff frameworks". (This is standard operations in military frameworks -- "who does one sacrifice and what are the costs vs. benefits?") The "trolly" argument only abstracts the debate one level from reality. The military argument only abstracts it perhaps two levels from reality. The blood still falls on someones shoulders and they are left with saying I did the best that I could. And so "we" are left with "you should have done better" directed towards those who might have determined this if we had only had the foresight to make it so. Anders, are you content to sit in ivory towers at Oxford while people die? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 22 01:26:47 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:26:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Bradbury wrote: > Anders, are you content to sit in ivory towers at Oxford while people die? Robert, lately you've been firing off these accusatory but indirect statements, and I've got to say it took me a long time to get past the tone and understand where you seem to coming from. Of course many of us know Anders as one of the most knowledgeable, balanced, and active voices of transhumanism in the world. I think the bluntness of your accusatory question is intended to play off this high degree of contrast, but I'm afraid it tends to backfire and make you look unreasonable. Yes, it comes down to values, and the question of how best to allocate one's attention and resources. Is it better to do things right, or to do the right thing? And over what scope, more tactical or more strategic? - Jef From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jan 22 01:37:07 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:37:07 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Visualising the list network In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070121181454.02455158@satx.rr.com> References: <380-22007141819435857@M2W004.mail2web.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118160619.023e7990@satx.rr.com> <51909.86.137.247.245.1169423657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070121181454.02455158@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <52446.86.137.247.245.1169429827.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> I have written an applet that demonstrates the social structure of the list (similar in many respects to the old program I had running a few years back that drew a graph of who was posting to what thread): http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/exichatapplet/ It can load list data from a few different months, and you can play around with the various threads and debaters as you wish with the mouse and keyboard commands. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jan 22 02:36:47 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:36:47 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: References: <45B3CE81.3020606@lineone.net> <52091.86.137.247.245.1169425272.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <52805.86.137.247.245.1169433407.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: > I don't know whether to be more aghast at the fact that this seems to have > migrated into a contemporary ethical problem from Oxford to Harvard (don't > distribute ones refuse unless one knows how to clean it up!) or > "educational > systems should distribute tradeoff frameworks". Actually, the problem was formulated by Philippa Ruth Foot (either in Oxford or at UCLA). But it is much older, the "Plank of Carneades" is an antique version of it. The point is not so much to "solve" the trolley problem as to use it to figure out how humans think when they plan moral behavior. Variants have been used to demonstrate various inconsistencies and biases in our thinking. > Anders, are you content to sit in ivory towers at Oxford while people die? Yup. (as we all know, ethicists do not have to be moral :-) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 02:36:04 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:36:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: <51909.86.137.247.245.1169423657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <380-22007141819435857@M2W004.mail2web.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118160619.023e7990@satx.rr.com> <51909.86.137.247.245.1169423657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: Even if Damien's theory is correct in general, I don't believe the supposed thread competition effect occurred here in first place, in *this* case, at least not to any significant degree. I say this because I was participating in at least two other threads when Eugen came along and somewhat capriciously nixed this one about probability theory. There was in my opinion no good reason to shut it down. The discussion was not inflamed; it was reasonable and civil and we were even starting to have some fun with it (Jef's funny take-off on my Spock bit). And as I've already mentioned, there were at least to my way of thinking many sub-topics in the philosophy of probability still waiting to be discussed in more detail by those of us who might be interested (Popper's propensity theory, for example, and the variations thereof, in addition to other theories). Also there were newly opened questions still floating in the thread at the time, for example an investigation into the algorithmic theories of randomness and how they might affect the various interpretations of probability theory, to me very interesting questions worth pursuing but which I have been forced to take elsewhere. -gts From brent.allsop at comcast.net Mon Jan 22 02:55:35 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:55:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lee Daniel Crocker? Message-ID: <200701220305.l0M35ptL014675@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Extropes, Have any of you communicated with Lee Daniel Crocker lately? I?ve been trying to get in touch with him, using his old piclab e-mail address. I suspect I may be getting spam filtered or something. Does anyone know of a better way to get a hold of him? Thanks Brent Allsop -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 1/20/2007 10:31 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Jan 22 03:23:21 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:23:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: References: <52091.86.137.247.245.1169425272.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <45B3CE81.3020606@lineone.net> <52091.86.137.247.245.1169425272.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070121221330.03a21a50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:11 AM 1/22/2007 +0000, Robert wrote: >On 1/22/07, Anders Sandberg <asa at nada.kth.se> wrote: >>Here it is usually stated as the "trolley problem", [snip] >>BTW, the trolley problem has some interesting neuroethical complications. >> [snip] > >I don't know whether to be more aghast at the fact that this seems to have >migrated into a contemporary ethical problem from Oxford to Harvard (don't >distribute ones refuse unless one knows how to clean it up!) or >"educational systems should distribute tradeoff frameworks". (This is >standard operations in military frameworks -- "who does one sacrifice and >what are the costs vs. benefits?") > >The "trolly" argument only abstracts the debate one level from >reality. The military argument only abstracts it perhaps two levels from >reality. The blood still falls on someones shoulders and they are left >with saying I did the best that I could. And so "we" are left with "you >should have done better" directed towards those who might have determined >this if we had only had the foresight to make it so. Our sense of ethical/moral comes from somewhere; the EP supporters say it comes from the evolution of our brains in the prehistory of our race. If so, it contributed in some way to the genetic survival of our ancestors. Understanding how our ethical and moral sense works, especially in the extremes such as Rwanda or Cambodia, gives us a better chance to avoid such unpleasant events. >Anders, are you content to sit in ivory towers at Oxford while people die? Understanding the problem means you are a lot more likely to take effective steps. At least I come to this conclusion by analogy with the germ theory of disease that Pasteur and Koch established. Of course if you understand what is needed to deal with the pressing problems of the next 20-25 years, please speak up. :-) Keith From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 22 05:21:03 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:21:03 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lee Daniel Crocker? In-Reply-To: <200701220305.l0M35ptL014675@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200701220521.l0M5L9nP011167@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I went in search of Lee Daniel a few months ago. All @s I found for him either bounced or were no replies. If you find him do invite him to drop by and say hello to old friends who miss his insights. spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brent Allsop Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 6:56 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [extropy-chat] Lee Daniel Crocker? Extropes, Have any of you communicated with Lee Daniel Crocker lately? I've been trying to get in touch with him, using his old piclab e-mail address. I suspect I may be getting spam filtered or something. Does anyone know of a better way to get a hold of him? Thanks Brent Allsop -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 1/20/2007 10:31 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 22 05:18:54 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:18:54 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701220529.l0M5TDkX012628@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? > > ... for example an investigation into the algorithmic > theories of randomness and how they might affect the various > interpretations of probability theory, to me very interesting questions > worth pursuing but which I have been forced to take elsewhere. -gts Suggestion, when a ton of divergent stuff is being posted under the original subject line, spin off, re-title and refocus the discussion. If it again fills up with divergent stuff, rinse and repeat. The moderators are not here to kill good productive discussions. spike From amara at amara.com Mon Jan 22 06:36:31 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:36:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children Message-ID: Robert: >I would be interested in the "chemistry experiments" that one did on a >boat. I missed that part during the boat life. There were ongoing 'natural' chemistry experiments, but those were removed when we pumped the bilge. No my play in my childhood boat life usually revolved around catching things (the boat was usually docked, so we had 'toys' like crabs and shrimp and geckos to play with). And a lot of swimming. And I should say that I never did 'take' to chemistry. Didn't like it in middle school, high school or college. I think that my astronomy has suffered for not having a good chemistry training too. Perhaps if I had grasped the idea of 'playing' with chemistry, it would have gone somewhere with me. PJ's daughter's Hannah's chemistry experiments are extremely creative. Mixing things (no limits on 'things', as I understand) together and seeing what happens. And taking notes! (She's 8...) 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 pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 07:06:14 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:06:14 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Lee Daniel Crocker? In-Reply-To: <200701220305.l0M35ptL014675@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701220305.l0M35ptL014675@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 1/22/07, Brent Allsop wrote: > Have any of you communicated with Lee Daniel Crocker lately? > > I've been trying to get in touch with him, using his old piclab e-mail > address. > I suspect I may be getting spam filtered or something. > > Does anyone know of a better way to get a hold of him? Lee last posted on Wikipedia User Talk on 12 Jan 2007 See at foot of page. An entry there might get his attention if his email is clogged up with spam. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 07:42:24 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:42:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] frozen in fire In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070121221330.03a21a50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <45B3CE81.3020606@lineone.net> <52091.86.137.247.245.1169425272.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <5.1.0.14.0.20070121221330.03a21a50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 1/22/07, Keith Henson wrote: > Our sense of ethical/moral comes from somewhere; the EP supporters say it > comes from the evolution of our brains in the prehistory of our race. If > so, it contributed in some way to the genetic survival of our ancestors. > > Understanding how our ethical and moral sense works, especially in the > extremes such as Rwanda or Cambodia, gives us a better chance to avoid such > unpleasant events. > > Understanding the problem means you are a lot more likely to take effective > steps. At least I come to this conclusion by analogy with the germ theory > of disease that Pasteur and Koch established. > > Of course if you understand what is needed to deal with the pressing > problems of the next 20-25 years, please speak up. :-) > Maybe a lot of the stuff that has survived through to modern humans is just an incidental side-effect. Not *every* feature necessarily aided ancient survival. One or two major traits may have enabled survival and dragged a lot of garbage along with them. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jan 22 08:10:07 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:10:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: what is probability? In-Reply-To: References: <380-22007141819435857@M2W004.mail2web.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070118160619.023e7990@satx.rr.com> <51909.86.137.247.245.1169423657.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20070122081006.GM13646@leitl.org> On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:36:04PM -0500, gts wrote: > I say this because I was participating in at least two other threads when > Eugen came along and somewhat capriciously nixed this one about > probability theory. It wasn't capricious, in the sense that I'm complaint-driven. > There was in my opinion no good reason to shut it down. The discussion was > not inflamed; it was reasonable and civil and we were even starting to > have some fun with it (Jef's funny take-off on my Spock bit). And as I've > already mentioned, there were at least to my way of thinking many > sub-topics in the philosophy of probability still waiting to be discussed > in more detail by those of us who might be interested (Popper's propensity > theory, for example, and the variations thereof, in addition to other > theories). Also there were newly opened questions still floating in the > thread at the time, for example an investigation into the algorithmic > theories of randomness and how they might affect the various > interpretations of probability theory, to me very interesting questions > worth pursuing but which I have been forced to take elsewhere. Hey, if more people want to participate in this thread I retract my killthread, of course. -- 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 Sun Jan 21 10:39:56 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:39:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5AECC133-382F-4E25-93BB-62104E6D9552@mac.com> On Jan 18, 2007, at 9:37 PM, Anna Taylor wrote: > I am doing a questionnaire on Senses and was looking > for some help regarding this matter. > > What do you think is your most keen sense? > Sight. I am big into Eye. By far my favorite. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jan 21 10:44:04 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:44:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? In-Reply-To: <20070119104804.GT13646@leitl.org> References: <20070119104804.GT13646@leitl.org> Message-ID: $200 million is well within the means of some well-heeled individuals and many corporations. The research will be funded I imagine. If not by a western government or privately then by the Chinese. - samantha On Jan 19, 2007, at 2:48 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:45:23PM -0700, mike99 wrote: >> >> Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? >> >> Cheap, abundant and clean energy is the goal of >> environmentalists and >> technologists. Where will it come from? Solar, wind, geothermal, >> tidal >> and biomass can provide some of it, but these sources have many >> limitations, such as low-energy density, relatively high cost, and >> uneven global distribution. If we could develop a technology to >> generate clean energy from an element found in water, our energy >> problems could be solved. >> >> Can we do that? Yes, with fusion. >> >> ...more -> [1]http://latorra.blogspot.com/ > > Allright, let's look at this in detail. First, the full text, in > order to be able to comment: > > http://latorra.blogspot.com/ > > Tuesday, January 16, 2007 > Fusion Power: Linchpin Technology? > > Cheap, abundant and clean energy is the goal of environmentalists > and technologists. Where will it come from? Solar, wind, geothermal, > tidal and biomass can provide some of it, but these sources have > many limitations, such as low-energy density, relatively high cost, > and uneven global distribution. If we could develop a technology to > generate clean energy from an element found in water, our energy > problems could be solved. > > Can we do that? Yes, with fusion. > > Fusion powers the sun[1]. So, indirectly, all photovoltaic cells are > indirectly using the output of the fusion process. But photovoltaics > are far less inefficient than the fusion process itself. > > The development of practical fusion energy systems on earth has been > the holy grail of scientists since the 1950s. Today, in the early > years of the 21st century, the international effort to develop a > commercial fusion energy system is still in its early developmental > stages. The ITER "tokamak" (toroidal) fusion reactor now being built > in France is experimental, not a commercial energy producing > system[2]. Many decades will elapse before any electricity from this > particular fusion technology can enter the public energy grid. The > current ITER timeline projects commercialization no sooner than 2050 > and probably much later. > > But the ITER machine is not the only possible fusion device. Dr. > Robert Bussard and his colleagues claim to have developed a > different method of producing fusion power using an Inertial- > Electrodynamic Fusion Device that is thousands of times more > efficient than the tokamak method, and can be built and deployed to > produce commercially usable energy in a decade or so[3a & 3b]. In > 2006 the International Academy of Science gave Dr. Bussard its > highest award for this research[4]. > > According to Dr. Bussard, these are some of the advantages of his > fusion power system[5]: > > > > * Stop Greenhouse Effect > * Eliminate Acid Rain Sources > * Decrease Thermal Pollution Sources > * Stop Nuclear Waste Production > * Destroy Nuclear Waste Inventory > * End Water Shortages Forever > * Cheap Fuel Free Electric Power > * Clean Low Cost System > * Fresh Water From The Sea > * Practical Space Flight > * Global Economic Stability > * Cheap, Clean Therma/Electric Power Readily Available > * Fixed Energy Prices Stabilize Economy > * Low Value Cane In Third World Countries Becomes High Value > Export Product > * Third World Nations Can Become Economically Viable > * Profitable Industrialization Possible > * Destroys World Market For Gasoline > * Eliminates Effect Of Oil Cartels > * Oil States Suffer Drastic Income Losses > * Desalinization Plants Allow Irrigation Of Arid Lands > * Cheap Water Allows Effective Agriculture > * Low Cost Power Stabilizes Industrial Nations > * Oil Wars Vanish > * Mid-East Stabilized by Economics > * Third World Becomes Fiscally Responsible > * End Use Market Price Ca. $5,000 B In Year 2000 $ > * Sell/Lease Systems To Supply Energy Plants/Production > * Royalty/Lease Fees at 2% of Market Price Equivalent To Ca. 2m/ > kWhr Surcharge Yields Net Income (Profit) at Ca. $100 B/Year (which > means an estimated electrical cost of 1 cent/kWhr - ed.) > > > If even half of these benefits were to materialize, the world would > be transformed. So when will this actually happen? > > Maybe never. Dr. Bussard's government research funding of a few > million dollars has been terminated. He estimates the cost of fully > developing his technology into a commercial system to be about $200 > million. This is a tiny fraction of the $12 billion of the ITER > project. It's even a smaller fraction of the US Federal budget for > 2007, which is over $3 trillion. The money Dr. Bussard needs to > complete the development of his safe, clean, energy system would be > a mere rounding error in the US government's budget, and certainly > less than is currently sinking into the sump of fraud, waste and > abuse (not to mention misguided policy initiatives). > > The dream of fusion power is still a dream deferred. The giant, slow- > moving ITER project cannot deliver any useful power until the second > half of the 21st century, if then. Dr. Bussard's fast, relatively > cheap fusion system could be fully developed, tested and ? if it > works as promised ? deployed by 2017. > > Fusion may be the linchpin technology for technical and economic > development. Like the linchpin that prevents a wheel from sliding > off its axle, fusion can secure the wheel of progress to the axle of > safe energy. It can be the source of the clean, abundant energy > required for both economic abundance on earth and the exploration > oand settlement of space in our solar system and beyond. > > Is it worth risking some government money on such a project? I > cannot imagine any convincing reason not to. > > > -- > 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 jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 22 13:46:14 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:46:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <5AECC133-382F-4E25-93BB-62104E6D9552@mac.com> Message-ID: Anna Taylor wrote: > I am doing a questionnaire on Senses and was looking for some help > regarding this matter. > > What do you think is your most keen sense? Anna - Sight is the sense I value most due to its relatively high bandwidth. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 22 17:48:43 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:48:43 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (was: cold fusion warms up) In-Reply-To: <00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com> <00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com> At 01:50 AM 12/26/2006 -0500, John K Clark wrote: >there is no big controversy >over this matter, 99.9% of the scientific community think cold fusion >(except Muon-catalyzed cold fusion) is utter crap. It would be neat if it >worked but it doesn't and there are plenty of other neat things that do >work; life is short, time to move on. Elvis lives! Since we are in the post-"cold fusion"-claim crackdown era, apparently outlandish claims of this sort are either refused publication, or peer reviewed, published, and entirely ignored. At the risk of confirming John's probable estimate of my gullibility, I commend the following book, which I'm reading on the recommendation of my old mentor and friend Arthur Clarke: EXCESS HEAT: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, by Charles G. Beaudette (an MIT-trained retired electrical engineer). This fine book shook up my prejudiced concurrence with the prevailing view of CF, and helped explain how it's possible that so many sober technicians (more than 100 worldwide) persist in getting positive results from such apparatus even though no principled explanation is remotely forthcoming. (As it wasn't with superconductivity for decades.) The error Pons and Fleischman made, in my view, was largely one of bypassing some of the traditional filters to announcement (as Steorn, of course, are also doing), and in contaminating their earliest declared results with some errors on neutron counts. But it now seems clear that a huge amount of consolidated work has been done in the nearly 20 years since. The calorimetry looks good, the results moderately repeatable (more so than IVF pregnancies let alone routine animal cloning), the excess heat production anomalous and worthy of study. But the sociology and politics of the evolving situation has made that impossible for the moment. Have a look at Beaudette's book. It's also fun to read. Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jan 22 18:59:15 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:59:15 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (was: cold fusion warms up) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com> <00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070122185915.GW13646@leitl.org> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:48:43AM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > decades.) The error Pons and Fleischman made, in my view, was largely I don't recall the details anymore, but the original Pons/Fleischman experiments struck me as sloppy. This effectively stopped my scheme of ordering some Pd wire and taking a go at that 98% heavy water bottle. But it looked so good for a while :/ http://www.skepticfiles.org/ufo1/fusion.htm > one of bypassing some of the traditional filters to announcement (as > Steorn, of course, are also doing), and in contaminating their > earliest declared results with some errors on neutron counts. But it > now seems clear that a huge amount of consolidated work has been done > in the nearly 20 years since. The calorimetry looks good, the results > moderately repeatable (more so than IVF pregnancies let alone routine > animal cloning), the excess heat production anomalous and worthy of > study. But the sociology and politics of the evolving situation has > made that impossible for the moment. Have a look at Beaudette's book. > It's also fun to read. -- 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 pj at pj-manney.com Mon Jan 22 21:06:48 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:06:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Michael Chabon on the Clock of the Long Now Message-ID: <10854243.964641169500008846.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> I didn't know if anyone had ever seen this article by Michael Chabon, one of my favorite writers of all time. It makes me teary-eyed every time I hit the last paragraph. My husband says I always cry when a profound truth is presented to me. I guess he's right. PJ http://www.michaelchabon.com/column/archives/2006/01/the_omega_glory.html The Omega Glory Monthly I was reading, in a recent issue of Discover, about the Clock of the Long Now. Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters, among them visionary engineer Danny Hillis, a pioneer in the concept of massively parallel processing; Whole Earth mahatma Stewart Brand; and British composer Brian Eno (one of my household gods), plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day?s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it?s going to run for ten thousand years. That is about as long a span as separates us from the first makers of pottery, which is among the oldest technologies we have. Ten thousand years is twice as old as the pyramid of Cheops, twice as old as that mummified body found preserved in the Swiss Alps, which is one of the oldest mummies ever discovered. The Clock of the Long Now is being designed to thrive under regular human maintenance along the whole of that long span, though during periods when no one is around to tune it, the giant clock will contrive to adjust itself. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don?t just bequeath the future?though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it. The Sex Pistols, strictly speaking, were right: there is no future, for you or for me. The future, by definition, does not exist. ?The Future,? whether you capitalize it or not, is always just an idea, a proposal, a scenario, a sketch for a mad contraption that may or may not work. ?The Future? is a story we tell, a narrative of hope, dread or wonder. And it?s a story that, for a while now, we?ve been pretty much living without. Ten thousand years from now: can you imagine that day? Okay, but do you? Do you believe ?the Future? is going to happen? If the Clock works the way that it?s supposed to do?if it lasts?do you believe there will be a human being around to witness, let alone mourn its passing, to appreciate its accomplishment, its faithfulness, its immense antiquity? What about five thousand years from now, or even five hundred? Can you extend the horizon of your expectations for our world, for our complex of civilizations and cultures, beyond the lifetime of your own children, of the next two or three generations? Can you even imagine the survival of the world beyond the present presidential administration? I was surprised, when I read about the Clock of the Long Now, at just how long it had been since I had given any thought to the state of the world ten thousand years hence. At one time I was a frequent visitor to that imaginary mental locale. And I don?t mean merely that I regularly encountered ?the Future? in the pages of science fiction novels or comic books, or when watching a TV show like The Jetsons (1962) or a movie like Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970). The story of the Future was told to me, when I was growing up, not just by popular art and media but by public and domestic architecture, industrial design, school textbooks, theme parks, and by public institutions from museums to government agencies. I heard the story of the Future when I looked at the space-ranger profile of the Studebaker Avanti, at Tomorrowland through the portholes of the Disneyland monorail, in the tumbling plastic counters of my father?s Seth Thomas Speed Read clock. I can remember writing a report in sixth grade on hydroponics; if you had tried to tell me then that by 2005 we would still be growing our vegetables in dirt, you would have broken my heart. Even thirty years after its purest expression on the covers of pulp magazines like Amazing Stories and, supremely, at the New York World?s Fair of 1939, the collective cultural narrative of the Future remained largely an optimistic one of the impending blessings of technology and the benevolent, computer-assisted meritocracy of Donald Fagen?s ?fellows with compassion and vision.? But by the early seventies?indeed from early in the history of the Future?it was not all farms under the sea and family vacations on Titan. Sometimes the Future could be a total downer. If nuclear holocaust didn?t wipe everything out, then humanity would be enslaved to computers, by the ineluctable syllogisms of ?the Machine.? My childhood dished up a series of grim cinematic prognostications best exemplified by the Hestonian trilogy that began with the first Planet of the Apes (1968) and continued through The Omega Man (1971) and Soylent Green (1973). Images of future dystopia were rife in rock albums of the day, as on David Bowie?s Diamond Dogs (1974) and Rush?s 2112 (1976), and the futures presented by seventies writers of science fiction such as John Brunner tended to be unremittingly or wryly bleak. In the aggregate, then, stories of the Future presented an enchanting ambiguity. The other side of the marvelous Jetsons future might be a story of worldwide corporate-authoritarian technotyranny, but the other side of a post-apocalyptic mutational nightmare landscape like that depicted in The Omega Man was a landscape of semi-barbaric splendor and unfettered (if dangerous) freedom to roam, such as I found in the pages of Jack Kirby?s classic adventure comic book Kamandi, The Last Boy on Earth (1972-76). That ambiguity and its enchantment, the shifting tension between the bright promise and the bleak menace of the Future, was in itself a kind of story about the ways, however freakish or tragic, in which humanity (and by implication American culture and its values however freakish and tragic) would, in spite of it all, continue. Eed plebnista, intoned the devolved Yankees, in the Star Trek episode ?The Omega Glory,? who had somehow managed to hold on to and venerate as sacred gobbledygook the Preamble to the Constitution, norkon forden perfectunun. All they needed was a Captain Kirk to come and add a little interpretive water to the freeze-dried document, and the American way of life would flourish again. I don?t know what happened to the Future. It?s as if we lost our ability, or our will, to envision anything beyond the next hundred years or so, as if we lacked the fundamental faith that there will in fact be any future at all beyond that not-too-distant date. Or maybe we stopped talking about the Future around the time that, with its microchips and its twenty-four-hour news cycles, it arrived. Some days when you pick up the newspaper it seems to have been co-written by J. G. Ballard, Isaac Asimov, and Philip K. Dick. Human sexual reproduction without male genetic material, digital viruses, identity theft, robot firefighters and minesweepers, weather control, pharmaceutical mood engineering, rapid species extinction, US Presidents controlled by little boxes mounted between their shoulder blades, air-conditioned empires in the Arabian desert, transnational corporatocracy, reality television?some days it feels as if the imagined future of the mid-twentieth century was a kind of checklist, one from which we have been too busy ticking off items to bother with extending it. Meanwhile, the dwindling number of items remaining on that list?interplanetary colonization, sentient computers, quasi-immortality of consciousness through brain-download or transplant, a global government (fascist or enlightened)?have been represented and re-represented so many hundreds of times in films, novels and on television that they have come to seem, paradoxically, already attained, already known, lived with, and left behind. Past, in other words. This is the paradox that lies at the heart of our loss of belief or interest in the Future, which has in turn produced a collective cultural failure to imagine that future, any Future, beyond the rim of a couple of centuries. The Future was represented so often and for so long, in the terms and characteristic styles of so many historical periods from, say, Jules Verne forward, that at some point the idea of the Future?along with the cultural appetite for it?came itself to feel like something historical, outmoded, no longer viable or attainable. If you ask my eight-year-old about the Future, he pretty much thinks the world is going to end, and that?s it. Most likely global warming, he says?floods, storms, desertification?but the possibility of viral pandemic, meteor impact, or some kind of nuclear exchange is not alien to his view of the days to come. Maybe not tomorrow, or a year from now. The kid is more than capable of generating a full head of optimistic steam about next week, next vacation, his tenth birthday. It?s only the world a hundred years on that leaves his hopes a blank. My son seems to take the end of everything, of all human endeavor and creation, for granted. He sees himself as living on the last page, if not in the last paragraph, of a long, strange and bewildering book. If you had told me, when I was eight, that a little kid of the future would feel that way?and that what?s more, he would see a certain justice in our eventual extinction, would think the world was better off without human beings in it?that would have been even worse than hearing that in 2006 there are no hydroponic megafarms, no human colonies on Mars, no personal jetpacks for everyone. That would truly have broken my heart. When I told my son about the Clock of the Long Now, he listened very carefully, and we looked at the pictures on the Long Now Foundation?s website. ?Will there really be people then, Dad?? he said. ?Yes,? I told him without hesitation, ?there will.? I don?t know if that?s true, any more than do Danny Hillis and his colleagues, with the beating clocks of their hopefulness and the orreries of their imaginations. But in having children?in engendering them, in loving them, in teaching them to love and care about the world?parents are betting, whether they know it or not, on the Clock of the Long Now. They are betting on their children, and their children after them, and theirs beyond them, all the way down the line from now to 12,006. If you don?t believe in the Future, unreservedly and dreamingly, if you aren?t willing to bet that somebody will be there to cry when the Clock finally, ten thousand years from now, runs down, then I don?t see how you can have children. If you have children, I don?t see how you can fail to do everything in your power to ensure that you win your bet, and that they, and their grandchildren, and their grandchildren?s grandchildren, will inherit a world whose perfection can never be accomplished by creatures whose imagination for perfecting it is limitless and free. And I don?t see how anybody can force me to pay up on my bet if I turn out, in the end, to be wrong. From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jan 22 21:14:38 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:14:38 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] ethical issues with children In-Reply-To: <200701210349.l0L3nVRl008076@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701210349.l0L3nVRl008076@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1377.163.1.72.81.1169500478.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> spike wrote: > Another example: get odd jobs, work hard etc. This seemed right at the > time, but the youthful time I spent working minimum wage jobs for a > pittance > is worse than lost, for on at least one of those jobs I accumulated > injuries > that are with me to this day. Ouch. I learned a lot from working as a postman, especially why I wanted a job with no heavy lifting, no early mornings and lots of intellectual stimulance. I think there is a point in getting a few short+term jobs in different areas than your core speciality. I learned a tremendous amount by producing a neuroscience exhibition, especially since I had to work closely with designers, carpenters and other groups of people I would normally not have much to do with. As for useful skills, I think the self-esteem that comes from being to make something, whether it is software, a machine or art, is extremely useful. So repairing cars might not be practically important, but it gives Isaac the delight of knowing how the world works "under the hood" (literally in this case) and that one can fix it. I think the same goes for self-defence. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jonkc at att.net Mon Jan 22 22:40:36 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:40:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (was: cold fusion warms up) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com><00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > Elvis lives! I don't think so Damien, but nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be proven wrong about this. Unfortunately I don't think I'm wrong. And by the way, I'd like to be proven wrong about cold fusion too. > EXCESS HEAT: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, by Charles G. Beaudette > (an MIT-trained retired electrical engineer). Good God Almighty! AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER?! Eeek! Everybody knows electrical engineers are as dumb as dirt. No exceptions. Not one. There is simply no lower form of life! > The error Pons and Fleischman made, in my view, was largely one of bypassing some of the traditional filters to announcement It's largely forgotten today but soon after their notorious press conference Pons and Fleischmann did submit a paper to Nature, and knowing the potential importance of it the editors put it on a fast track for publication; and In just a few days they received comments from the referees. They wanted more data confirming the reaction, but even more important, they wanted clarification of the experimental setup. As described in the paper the experiment was so vague and nebulous it would be imposable for anyone to reproduce it. Pons and Fleischmann responded that they were busy and just did not have time to supply the requested data. They then withdrew the paper. For the life of me I just can't imagine what they could have been doing that was more important than supplying that data! I just can't. Even more astonishing, now after nearly 20 years, they still haven't been able to find the time. Just what wonderful and astronomically brilliant things have Pons and Fleischmann been doing these days? John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 22 23:17:44 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:17:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (was: cold fusion warms up) In-Reply-To: <002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com> <00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com> <002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070122170140.025065b0@satx.rr.com> At 05:40 PM 1/22/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > > EXCESS HEAT: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, by Charles G. Beaudette > > (an MIT-trained retired electrical engineer). > >Good God Almighty! AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER?! Eeek! Everybody knows >electrical engineers are as dumb as dirt. No exceptions. Not one. There is >simply no lower form of life! This is true, of course. But then Beaudette was also a successful businessman, and extropes know there's no higher form of life than that. >Pons and Fleischmann responded that they were busy and just >did not have time to supply the requested data. They then withdrew the >paper. For the life of me I just can't imagine what they could have been >doing that was more important than supplying that data! I can explain this, but I'm busy and just don't have time to supply the requested explanation. Get the book. Read the book. (But wait... I have a PSYCHIC PRESENTIMENT of your reply... something about... busy... yes, and... do not have.... time...) Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 23 00:18:06 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:18:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (was: cold fusion warms up) In-Reply-To: <002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com> <00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com> <002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070122175536.021b3e00@satx.rr.com> At 05:40 PM 1/22/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: >It's largely forgotten today but soon after their notorious press conference >Pons and Fleischmann did submit a paper to Nature, and knowing the potential >importance of it the editors put it on a fast track for publication; and In >just a few days they received comments from the referees. They wanted more >data confirming the reaction, but even more important, they wanted >clarification of the experimental setup. ... Even >more astonishing, now after nearly 20 years, **they still haven't been able to >find the time.** This simply isn't the case. The canonical paper is Fleischmann, Pons, Anderson, Li and Hawkins, "Calorimetry of the Palladium-Deuterium-Heavy Water System," J. Electroanalytical Chemistry, 287, 293, July 25, 1990. Subsequently, as Beaudette documents at great length, a large number of working replications have run hotter than predicted by conventional theory. These technical people have had no trouble "clarifying the experimental setup" and devising their own variants. Indeed, by September 1989, an emeritus prof at U. Minnesota, Richard Oriani, had already submitted a report on successful anomalous power corroboration to Nature--which was rejected by an editor after referees had passed the paper. Since then, a lot of confirmatory work has been published, by no means all of it in marginal periodicals like Infinite Energy. Could such a travesty happen? Surely it's impossible in the sanctified if sooty halls of science? Think Nobelist chemist/physicist Arrhenius--he'd barely scraped through his doctorate at the lowest grade, his ideas detested by the academy of the day. Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jan 23 00:30:40 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:30:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070122170140.025065b0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com> <00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com> <002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122170140.025065b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45B55730.6010900@pobox.com> John, The more recent evidence presented in favor of cold fusion looks interesting and non-instantly-dismissible, and they do a good job of explaining away the previous problems. I would not be surprised to see this field make a sudden comeback. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 23 06:31:39 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:31:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com><00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com><002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122175536.021b3e00@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002001c73eb8$318e9180$a1064e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" Wrote >This simply isn't the case. The canonical paper is Fleischmann, > Pons, Anderson, Li and Hawkins, "Calorimetry of the > Palladium-Deuterium-Heavy Water System," J. Electroanalytical Chemistry, > 287, 293, July 25, 1990. BULLSHIT! I most certainly am NOT wrong. "Electroanalytical Chemistry" is not Nature and I've never heard of the rag. It was ignored seventeen years ago when it was published and it's ignored today; and with good reason. > Beaudette documents at great length, a large number of working > replications have run hotter than predicted by conventional theory. >From High School science fare experiments. I would think the most important scientific discovery of the last century could do better than that. John K Clark From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Tue Jan 23 06:07:11 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:07:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45B5A60F.3040105@thomasoliver.net> Anna Taylor wrote: >What do you think is your most keen sense? > I've given hearing heavier emphasis than the other senses over most of my life, but my occupation, musical performance, requires an integration of hearing, touch, proprioception (mainly for sense of duration) and sight (in that order). Although I ranked sight last I've noticed that visual cues greatly facilitate precision since light travels so much faster than sound. My metronome blinks. -- Thomas From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 23 07:47:59 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:47:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com><00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com><002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070122170140.025065b0@satx.rr.com> <45B55730.6010900@pobox.com> Message-ID: <006101c73ec2$e4c82d10$a1064e0c@MyComputer> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > I would not be surprised to see this field make a sudden comeback. I hope you're right, I really and truly do. But unfortunately I don't think that is likely to happen. But no mater: if correct, there is still plenty other stuff to make Christian's soil their underwear. John K Clark From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 09:25:48 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:25:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <002001c73eb8$318e9180$a1064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <222648.39203.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- John K Clark wrote: > It was > ignored seventeen years > ago > when it was published and it's ignored today; and > with good reason. Not having tried to replicate their results myself, I can't tell you if they are right or not. But Gregor Mendel's work was also highly criticized, ridiculed, and essentially ignored for almost forty years. Then some twenty years after his death, he became an overnight sensation and his paper formed the foundation of modern genetics. The knowing of nature is not a popularity contest but sometimes science can be. 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 23 12:17:36 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 07:17:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <002001c73eb8$318e9180$a1064e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com><00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com><002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122175536.021b3e00@satx.rr.com> <002001c73eb8$318e9180$a1064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > "Damien Broderick" Wrote > >> This simply isn't the case. The canonical paper is Fleischmann, >> Pons, Anderson, Li and Hawkins, "Calorimetry of the >> Palladium-Deuterium-Heavy Water System," J. Electroanalytical >> Chemistry, >> 287, 293, July 25, 1990. > > BULLSHIT! I most certainly am NOT wrong. "Electroanalytical > Chemistry" is > not Nature and I've never heard of the rag. It was ignored > seventeen years > ago > when it was published and it's ignored today; and with good reason. > John Clark, Regarding the Journal of Electroanalytical chemistry, according to http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/504087/ description#description " Impact factor of this journal 2005: 2.223 " This is not extremely high or anything, but nor is it disastrously low; it is higher than plenty of other respectable science journals, as noted e.g. in http://www.bioscience.org/services/impact15.htm Anyway, judging a piece of science by the fame of the journal it's published in is really not very sensible. I am no expert on cold fusion, but what I have read suggests to me that (as Damien and Eliezer agree) it is not "clear and obvious BS." It may or may not be what Pons and Fleischmann said it is, but, it seems like it is probably something not explained by contemporary scientific theories. This seems to relate to a recent thread about philosophy of science, in which I pointed out that science is a human, sociological phenomenon in which "truth" is ultimately judged by groups of people and their intuitive judgements rather than purely by objective and rigorous mathematical/empirical criteria. A case like cold fusion, where the phenomenon is hard to replicate and the politics are considerable, is precisely the sort of case where this "sociological" aspect of science comes to the fore. Apparently you have the tendency to ignore, deny or minimize evidence that appears to contradict your own simplistic philosophy of science ;-) -- Ben G From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 23 17:21:47 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:21:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <222648.39203.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00c201c73f12$fd759050$46044e0c@MyComputer> "The Avantguardian" > Gregor Mendel's work was also highly criticized, ridiculed, > and essentially ignored for almost forty years. Pons and Fleischmann were not ignored, far far from it! They were a sensation, for a while. Thousands of researchers tried to duplicate their results and thousands failed to do so. And remember, at the same time that Mendel wrote his paper Bernie Applebaum also wrote a scientific article; it was ignored at the time and it's ignored today. That's why Bernie Applebaum is not one of the scientific Olympians. Ben Goertzel > This is not extremely high or anything, but nor is it disastrously low; > it is higher than plenty of other respectable science journals And there is not a doubt in my mind that the reputation of "Electroanalytical Chemistry" would be considerably higher if it had not published Pons and Fleischmann's article. > Anyway, judging a piece of science by the fame of the journal it's > published in is really not very sensible. That statement is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous! When I read an article in Science or Nature I tend to think it's probably true, even if I have not personally duplicated the experiment. I make no such assumption when I read in the National Enquirer that a statue of Elvis has been found on Mars. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 23 17:46:29 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:46:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <00c201c73f12$fd759050$46044e0c@MyComputer> References: <222648.39203.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <00c201c73f12$fd759050$46044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: > >> This is not extremely high or anything, but nor is it >> disastrously low; >> it is higher than plenty of other respectable science journals > > And there is not a doubt in my mind that the reputation of > "Electroanalytical Chemistry" would be considerably higher if it > had not > published Pons and Fleischmann's article. That is quite surely wrong, as the reputation is determined largely by impact factors, which are statistical in nature and not dependent on the reputation of any particular article. > >> Anyway, judging a piece of science by the fame of the journal it's >> published in is really not very sensible. > > That statement is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous! When I read an > article > in Science or Nature I tend to think it's probably true, even if I > have not > personally duplicated the experiment. I make no such assumption > when I read > in the National Enquirer that a statue of Elvis has been found on > Mars. > I was not arguing that trash newspapers are equally valid sources as scientific journals, but rather that the impact factor of a scientific journal (or fame otherwise measured) is not an extremely reliable guide to the long-term importance of the contents of papers in the journal. High-impact journals tend to be trendy as well as high-quality; and high-quality research in non-trendy areas often winds up getting published in lower-impact journals, yet still has major long-term impact. -- Ben G From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 23 18:19:06 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:19:06 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <002001c73eb8$318e9180$a1064e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com> <00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com> <002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122175536.021b3e00@satx.rr.com> <002001c73eb8$318e9180$a1064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123115711.0247b7c8@satx.rr.com> At 01:31 AM 1/23/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > > Beaudette documents at great length, a large number of working > > replications have run hotter than predicted by conventional theory. > > From High School science fare experiments. Anyone who bothers to read Beaudette's book will find that this is not the case. In a chapter on early validation/corroboration, he lists the consistent work--which used several variations in protocol and hence guarded against some common unknown error--by established scientists: Dr. Michael McKubre, SRI International Prof. Richard Oriani, U. Minnesota (whom I cited in a previous post) Prof. Robert Huggins, Stanford University Melvin Miles, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake Drs. Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang, Osaka University This confirming work was all done by 1994/5, and has been continued by other researchers. In some instances, revealingly, the DOE panel on the effect accepted early reports of failure to replicate by some of these researchers, then refused to heed or include their subsequent successes. It's politics, not science as we would wish to know it, Jim. >I would think the most important >scientific discovery of the last century could do better than that. From reliable reports, it seems that the "cold fusion" (probably a misnomer) excess heat effect generates low-grade heat. It's not a nuclear bomb in a test tube, it's not likely to drive a rocket to Mars. And I somehow doubt that it could be seen as more important that, say, S. and G. Relativity, quantum theory, antibiotics, lasers, stellar nucleosynthesis, the structure of DNA and its code, the expansion of the universe, the *acceleration* of that expansion, the development of electronic computers... Damien Broderick From scerir at libero.it Tue Jan 23 18:03:54 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:03:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <222648.39203.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com><00c201c73f12$fd759050$46044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <001301c73f18$d8d2d810$13bf1f97@archimede> > High-impact journals tend to be trendy as well as high-quality; and > high-quality research in non-trendy areas often winds up getting > published in lower-impact journals, yet still has major long-term > impact. > -- Ben G This reminds of something John Cramer said ... Cramer: "You have to realize that Physical Review is divided up into various sections, and there's one ghetto section, called Physical Review D-15 which is only published on the fifteenth of every month, and all of the whacko ideas tend to go into Physical Review D-15." B: "Is that really true? I didn't realize that." Cramer: "Yes. And I have to admit that I subscribe to D-15 but not to D-1." From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 23 20:37:32 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:37:32 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] =?iso-8859-1?q?=2210_Questions_for_Gy=F6rgy_Buzs?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=E1ki_=22?= Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123143537.02228d18@satx.rr.com> http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/10-questions-for-gyki.php interesting interview e.g.: 6. Your discussion of the brain's first rhythm could make one feel that we are close to understanding when meaningful cognition begins. Does your knowledge of EEG patterns and their underpinnings influence your thinking about beginning-of-life, end-of-life, or even animal rights debates? I believe that cognition begins once the 1/f features of cortical rhythms emerge because this dynamics represents global (i.e., distributed) computation and only structures with these features appear to generate conscious experience. The ontogenetic appearance of 1/f dynamics coincides with the emergence of long-range cortico-cortical projections. In the newborn human the 1/f global feature of the EEG is already present. On the other hand, in preterm babies, depending on the gestation age, long seconds of neuronal silence alternate with short, spatially localized oscillatory bursts (known as "delta brush"), like in sharks and lizards. These localized intermittent cortical patterns in the premature brain, and similar ones in the strictly locally organized adult cerebellum, cannot give rise to conscious awareness, no matter the size. From this perspective, the structure-function relations between the small world network-like features of the cerebral cortex and the resultant global rhythms appear as necessary conditions for awareness. Earlier developmental stages without these properties simply do not have the necessary ingredients of the product we call cognition. From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jan 23 20:59:49 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:59:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: New Paper: Socio-Technological Acceleration Message-ID: Forwarding this link to a draft of a new paper by Francis Heylighen that is extremely relevant to extropian thinking. This paper effectively communicates the basis of much of my own epistemology, but violates my self-imposed limit of five-paragraphs for postings to the list. ;-) Add a layer of evolutionary psychology and resolve some implicit discontinuities involving the nature of subjective agents, and you would arrive at my Arrow of Morality theory. Some of my few quibbles: While the paper effectively states fundamental drivers and mechanism of progress, it comes across as over-optimistic in not mentioning the possibility of evolutionary cul-de-sac. There are a few Copernican epicycles present. One in the description of agents as acting to achieve goals, rather than acting as an expression of their values. This is of minor significance with respect to this paper but obstructs the conceptual way forward. Another is in the unnecessary introduction of a "medium" of interaction, in addition to agent and environment, with the implication of a discrete separation between an agent and its environment while ignoring the essential interdependency. Highly recommended! - Jef Francis Heylighen wrote: I just finished a paper in which I elaborate my new ideas on stigmergic organization. All comments welcome! Accelerating Socio-Technological Evolution: from ephemeralization and stigmergy to the global brain Francis Heylighen to appear in: T. Devezas & W. Thompson (eds.) Globalization as Evolutionary Process, Routledge, London (2007). (publication details may still change) URL: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/AcceleratingEvolution.pdf Abstract: Evolution is presented as a trial-and-error process that produces a progressive accumulation of knowledge. At the level of technology, this leads to ephemeralization, i.e. ever increasing productivity, or decreasing of the friction that normally dissipates resources. As a result, flows of matter, energy and information circulate ever more easily across the planet. This global connectivity increases the interactions between agents, and thus the possibilities for conflict. However, evolutionary progress also reduces social friction, via the creation of institutions. The emergence of such "mediators" is facilitated by stigmergy: the unintended collaboration between agents resulting from their actions on a shared environment. The Internet is a near ideal medium for stigmergic interaction. Quantitative stigmergy allows the web to learn from the activities of its users, thus becoming ever better at helping them to answer their queries. Qualitative stigmergy stimulates agents to collectively develop novel knowledge. Both mechanisms have direct analogues in the functioning of the human brain. This leads us to envision the future, super-intelligent web as a "global brain" for humanity. The feedback between social and technological advances leads to an extreme acceleration of innovation. An extrapolation of the corresponding hyperbolic growth model would forecast a singularity around 2040. This can be interpreted as the evolutionary transition to the Global Brain regime. For a related paper, see: Francis Heylighen: Why is Open Access Development so Successful? Stigmergic organization and the economics of information, to appear in: B. Lutterbeck, M. B?rwolff & R. A. Gehring (eds.), Open Source Jahrbuch 2007, Lehmanns Media, 2007 http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/OpenSourceStigmergy.pdf -- Francis Heylighen Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group Free University of Brussels http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 23 21:35:04 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:35:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com><00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com><002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070122175536.021b3e00@satx.rr.com><002001c73eb8$318e9180$a1064e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070123115711.0247b7c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002701c73f36$5d422bb0$e9054e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > This confirming work was all done by 1994/5 That was over a decade ago! In the meantime scientists have weighed the neutrino, measured the distance to the moon to a fraction of an inch, and discovered that the universe is accelerating; but they still can't confirm this "confirming work", they still can't detect the heat from those stupid bottles. Don't you find that a little strange? I said it before I'll say it again, High School Science Fair Experiments. So, what will be the state of cold fusion research a decade from now? I will tell you, it will be identical to ESP research, a few on the fringe will claim to have made wonderful progress, real scientists will get on with their lives, and a article favorable to cold fusion or ESP will still not appear in Science or Nature. I could change the word "decade" to "century" and I would not need to change another word. > It's politics, not science as we would wish to know it Yea yea yea, I know, there is this big conspiracy; but the truth can't be kept hidden forever. Come on Damien make a stand! Will an article favorable to cold fusion (or ESP) appear in Science or Nature in the next year or will it not? I say it will not, if it does then you're a better man than me. So Damien what do you say? John K Clark From amara at amara.com Tue Jan 23 22:09:35 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:09:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings Message-ID: Even though the wikipedia entry could use a little editing, there seems to be a fair amount of recent cold fusion activity (i.e. articles and papers and discussions since 1990) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion The lack of papers on cold fusion in the nucl-ex and cond-mat section of ArXiV is interesting. .....[Amara goes away and Google searches a bit] Yes, there are reports that the ArXiV moderators are not permitting some (maybe all?) submitted cold fusion articles. 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 23 22:13:44 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:13:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <002701c73f36$5d422bb0$e9054e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061221145947.022ccd08@satx.rr.com> <00a501c728ba$40dfb7e0$e6074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122114151.022d3b58@satx.rr.com> <002201c73e76$5c5a6700$b60c4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070122175536.021b3e00@satx.rr.com> <002001c73eb8$318e9180$a1064e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070123115711.0247b7c8@satx.rr.com> <002701c73f36$5d422bb0$e9054e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123160412.0239e8e0@satx.rr.com> At 04:35 PM 1/23/2007 -0500, JKC wrote: >Come on Damien make a stand! Will an article favorable >to cold fusion (or ESP) appear in Science or Nature in the next year or will >it not? I say it will not, if it does then you're a better man than me. So >Damien what do you say? "CF", maybe. Psi, I doubt it, despite some lovely recent work on presentiment. Too much institutional inertia. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's just how things work with all sorts of heresies: anaesthesia, antisepsis, H. pylori/ulcers, Drexlerian molecular nanotechnology... That's obviously true as regards psi (which runs smack into the hard-won barrier against religion and superstition, mistakenly in my view), and it looks as if the objections to CF arose because the initial arbitrators were hot fusion physicists who looked for their own kind of explanation, which obviously was not forthcoming, rather than chemists. Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Tue Jan 23 22:17:28 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:17:28 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings Message-ID: This talk at the Cavendish Laboratory ~1 year ago by Russ George could be interesting for this discussion too: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/lectures/rgeorge2005.html http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/lectures/RGeorge_APS.pdf 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 amara at amara.com Tue Jan 23 22:25:27 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:25:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings Message-ID: Here's a Cold Fusion session at the American Physical Society 2006 meeting: http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR06/SessionIndex3/?SessionEventID=45597 (including a talk by Fleishmann) It seems that the topic is not 'dead'. 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 23 22:38:25 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:38:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> At 11:09 PM 1/23/2007 +0100, Amara wrote: >Yes, there are reports that the ArXiV moderators are not permitting some >(maybe all?) submitted cold fusion articles. Correct. Read more anguished fury about this on Brian Josephson's Cambridge University site. But of course it's not a conspiracy, no no no, I for one would never say that. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 24 20:15:35 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:15:35 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> An ominous silence seems to have fallen. Everyone still stunned by the State of the Onion speech? Damien Broderick From artillo at comcast.net Wed Jan 24 20:23:15 2007 From: artillo at comcast.net (Brian J. Shores) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:23:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000001c73ff5$7aeba730$650fa8c0@BJSMain> Guess so... And it made me cry too LOL Stunned isnt even the word! -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:16 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front An ominous silence seems to have fallen. Everyone still stunned by the State of the Onion speech? Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ 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: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 1/23/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.8/649 - Release Date: 1/23/2007 From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 20:52:42 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:52:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 1/24/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > An ominous silence seems to have fallen. Everyone still stunned by > the State of the Onion speech? I haven't noticed it yet (maybe)... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Wed Jan 24 21:01:53 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:01:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] No comet picture has been taken like this, anywhere, anyplace, at anytime Message-ID: There are no words good enough in any language from any human since the dawn of time to describe the exquisite detail in this STEREO SECCHI HI-1A instrument comet McNaught image. http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/sungrazer/images/hi1a_070117.png No comet picture has been taken like this, anywhere, anyplace, at anytime. Do you want to fly through its tail? Are you ready? WHEE! http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/sungrazer/images/h1a_comet_jan11_18_lo.mpg (there is a larger resolution version too) There's more than that came from, at the SOHO Comets Page. http://ares.nrl.navy.mil/sungrazer/index.php?p=latest_news -- 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 scerir at libero.it Wed Jan 24 21:30:42 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:30:42 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001601c73ffe$e75a8220$ba931f97@archimede> > An ominous silence seems to have fallen. it is the extropray time http://www.funnies.com/nighttimeprayer.htm From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jan 24 21:48:03 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:48:03 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4278.163.1.72.81.1169675283.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > An ominous silence seems to have fallen. Everyone still stunned by > the State of the Onion speech? Sometimes discussions just randomly stop at the same time and everybody is too embarrased to start up again. But maybe we don't have anything to say? Maybe it is time for us all to nod, say 'yes, that is how we'll do it.' and then go out and change the world. Naaah, it is much warmer and cozier indoors. :-) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 21:47:59 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:47:59 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Progress? What Progress? Message-ID: There is an enjoyable rant in today's Guardian newspaper. The age of technological revolution is 100 years dead Dazzled by neophiliacs, we have lost the power of scepticism - the new is grotesquely oversold, the tried and tested neglected Simon Jenkins Wednesday January 24, 2007 I rise each morning, shave with soap and razor, don clothes of cotton and wool, read a paper, drink a coffee heated by gas or electricity and go to work with the aid of petrol and an internal combustion engine. At a centrally heated office I type on a Qwerty keyboard; I might later visit a pub or theatre. Most people I know do likewise. Not one of these activities has altered qualitatively over the past century, while in the previous hundred years they altered beyond recognition. We do not live in the age of technological revolution. We live in the age of technological stasis, but do not realise it. It is all a bit over the top, but has some pointed remarks. I liked his comment about email, that most people email each other about twice a day, something the Victorian postal service managed to do perfectly adequately. :) BillK From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jan 24 21:55:22 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:55:22 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] BMJ as a transhumanist journal In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4362.163.1.72.81.1169675722.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> I read the staid old British Medical Journal, and it is occasionally delights me with transhumanist ideas. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/suppl_1/s8 "Computers: transcending our limits?" says: "But extrapolation does not acknowledge the complexity of evolution. A more exciting scenario may be unfolding, in which the future is not predetermined by immutable forces but shaped by our values, our interactions, and our will to survive as autonomously as possible against all odds.5 The 21st century computer age gives us the opportunity to create a "noosphere,"6 a true planetary thinking network with individual but interdependent humans as its nodes. The exponential development of wireless networks, mobile computing tools, and the internet may already be giving us a glimpse of a future in which we could work as "humanodes" in a true global superorganism.7 " (this is in a supplement on medical milestones, http://www.bmj.com/content/vol334/suppl_1/ ) And the Christmas issue, besides fun papers on the dangers of sword swallowing and whether surgeons look more dashing than doctors also discusses how Web 2.0 is changing medicine http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7582/1283 virtual drug companies http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7582/1315 the next "startling" technologies to change medicine http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7582/1308 (Molecular medicine and biometrics, Nanotechnology, Wave technology, Fabricators, Robotics and simulation) and looks back at 1986 to see how good past predictions have been http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7582/1311 (reasonably good in fact, although they tend to overestimate the rate of progress). -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 24 22:08:19 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:08:19 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <4278.163.1.72.81.1169675283.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> <4278.163.1.72.81.1169675283.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124160611.022ac670@satx.rr.com> At 10:48 PM 1/24/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: >Maybe it is time for us all to >nod, say 'yes, that is how we'll do it.' and then go out and change the >world. Naaah, it is much warmer and cozier indoors. :-) It certainly is--but then I always change the world (a tiny bit) by sitting in my study and thinking and writing as hard as I can. :) Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 24 22:21:54 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:21:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] BMJ as a transhumanist journal In-Reply-To: <4362.163.1.72.81.1169675722.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> <4362.163.1.72.81.1169675722.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124161931.0221f698@satx.rr.com> At 10:55 PM 1/24/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: > read the staid old British Medical Journal... >looks back at 1986 to see how good past predictions have been >http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7582/1311 "Those interviewed were right in thinking that traditional psychoanalysis would be a relatively unimportant element in the treatment of mental illness, but that use of cognitive therapy would increase. No one predicted a comeback for electroconvulsive therapy." Me! Me! I did! Damien Broderick From scerir at libero.it Wed Jan 24 22:09:02 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:09:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Three quarks for Mister Mark References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070124141433.023f5e50@satx.rr.com> <001601c73ffe$e75a8220$ba931f97@archimede> Message-ID: <002b01c74004$420243c0$ba931f97@archimede> "A quantum system cannot be 'turtles all the way down'." - J.Cramer "It is better to think of parts of the universe as splitting. As Everett once said (roughly), if a mouse observes the universe, the mouse, not the universe, is changed. I would say, if a human mind observes the universe, the mind, not the universe, is split." - Frank J. Tipler "In the early 1950s, my mentor Fritz Bopp pondered the question as to why the probabilities in quantum mechanics appear as absolute squares of complex amplitudes. This led to a series of papers with titles such as "Dice Games Whose Tokens Move Quantum Mechanically". In 1953, I had the great chance to spend a year in Copenhagen. One day Niels Bohr came to me saying: "I received again a manuscript by Professor Bopp. I do not understand why people occupy themselves with questions which have been clarified for decades while there are so many unsolved interesting new problems around." My imprudent answer: "Maybe things are not so clear", prompted a series of discussions." - Rudolf Haag ( for a postmodern followup of this issue see http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html ) From pj at pj-manney.com Wed Jan 24 22:35:03 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:35:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front Message-ID: <16399328.11101169678103361.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Damien, you sound like an argument addict jonesin' for a fix. ;-) PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 24 23:04:09 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:04:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <16399328.11101169678103361.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <16399328.11101169678103361.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124170032.02341ec0@satx.rr.com> At 05:35 PM 1/24/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >you sound like an argument addict jonesin' for a fix. ;-) ...no... It's just that usually when I boot up in the late morning there's a bunch of intriguing exi posts lined up waiting. I feared an Iraqi Terrorist Gang must have taken control of the internet. Damien Broderick From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Jan 24 23:33:28 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:33:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Poetry: O Brave New World Message-ID: <380-22007132423332888@M2W011.mail2web.com> If you could change any words within the soliloquy of Miranda (with Shakespeare's meaning, not Huxley's) to reflect a transhumanist world, what would you write? "O Wonder! How many goodly creatures there are here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world That has such people in?t!? Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 25 04:13:35 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:13:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Poetry: O Brave New World In-Reply-To: <380-22007132423332888@M2W011.mail2web.com> References: <380-22007132423332888@M2W011.mail2web.com> Message-ID: Natasha wrote: > If you could change any words within the soliloquy of Miranda (with > Shakespeare's meaning, not Huxley's) to reflect a transhumanist > world, what > would you write? > > "O Wonder! > How many goodly creatures there are here! > How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world > That has such people in't!" O Wonder! How diverse the branches of life! How subtle the threads of value! O brave new world That has such joyous growth in't! - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 04:02:12 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:02:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Progress? What Progress? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701250414.l0P4Ep6V027368@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK ... > > > I liked his comment about email, that most people email each other > about twice a day, something the Victorian postal service managed to > do perfectly adequately. :) > > BillK I see, and did the Victorian postal service manage to send mail to a self selected group of special interest subscribers, all over the globe at such speed that these scattered technophiles were able to have what amounts to a near real time conversation? I did like the comment about cotton and wool. My friends, cotton, wool and leather are most wonderful substances for making clothing. I don't worry about the fact that they are natural. {8-] spike From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Wed Jan 24 21:58:11 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:58:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front Message-ID: <380-220071324215811744@M2W017.mail2web.com> From: scerir scerir at libero.it >it is the extropray time >http://www.funnies.com/nighttimeprayer.htm Ooohh. Making my heart flutter. Love this dog! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 04:16:57 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:16:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <16399328.11101169678103361.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <200701250432.l0P4W1hI000211@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of pjmanney > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front > > Damien, you sound like an argument addict jonesin' for a fix. ;-) > > PJ OK, a few seconds with google cleared up this otherwise baffling comment: Jonesin: A word used to describe an intense craving for a drug. Comes from Great Jones Street in New York City, between Broadway and Lafayette Street, a former junkie hangout. ex. "I'm jonesin' for some coke." The impact of the internet is difficult to adequately describe. The futurists generally missed it, even when it was nearly upon us. They were still talking about flying cars and cities under the sea, when this quiet development of universal frictionless communication slipped under the radar and changed our lives as we know it. We have a world of knowledge at our fingertips. We know about everything that happens everywhere on this globe. We have access to the ultra-obscure realms of knowledge, the above given as a trivial example. Twenty years ago, I would have no idea what one was doing when jonesin for a fix; I would know exactly *no one* likely to have the vaguest clue what is meant by that curious bit of slang. Back in those dark days we went around not knowing stuff. The profound satisfaction of knowing stuff is the greatest transcendent ecstasy of our times. spike jones From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 25 04:46:38 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:46:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <200701250432.l0P4W1hI000211@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <16399328.11101169678103361.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <200701250432.l0P4W1hI000211@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070124224113.0235ce00@satx.rr.com> At 08:16 PM 1/24/2007 -0800, spike jones wrote: > > > Damien, you sound like an argument addict jonesin' for a fix. ;-) > > > > PJ >The impact of the internet is difficult to adequately >describe... We have a world of knowledge at our fingertips... The >profound satisfaction of knowing stuff is the greatest transcendent >ecstasy of our times. Exactly, Spike. And the profound pleasure of speaking with others who especially value this satisfaction is much like love. As is all friendship, of course. Which is why PJ's joking jab doesn't really capture my angst at the (temporary) silence of the list. What I was jonesin' for was a fix of rapid fire eclectic polymathic blather with my buds. Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jan 25 05:08:17 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:08:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <200701250432.l0P4W1hI000211@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <16399328.11101169678103361.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <200701250432.l0P4W1hI000211@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Spike wrote: > Twenty years ago, I would have no idea what one > was doing when jonesin for a fix; I would know > exactly *no one* likely to have the vaguest clue > what is meant by that curious bit of slang. Back > in those dark days we went around not knowing stuff. > The profound satisfaction of knowing stuff is the > greatest transcendent ecstasy of our times. I felt compelled to pull Lizbeth out of Second Life for a moment to read this to her, my face glowing. She replied "He's such a geek, just like you." I love ya man. This group has been good for me since the day I found it back in 1995 and discovered that I wasn't alone after all. - Jef From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Jan 25 05:41:16 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:41:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front Message-ID: <23863589.46331169703675779.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >OK, a few seconds with google cleared up this otherwise baffling comment: >Jonesin: A word used to describe an intense craving for a drug. Comes from >Great Jones Street in New York City, between Broadway and Lafayette Street, >a former junkie hangout. ex. "I'm jonesin' for some coke." Sorry guys. Sometimes I forget just how much of a New Yorker I am. BTW, Spike: Westchester County, NY -- Middletown, CT -- Manhattan -- LA -- Auckland, NZ -- LA, with decent stretches in London every year for almost 20 years, ages 7 - 26. But I guess you just can't take NY out of the NYer. No matter how many places you live. >We have access to the ultra-obscure realms of knowledge, the above given as >a trivial example. Twenty years ago, I would have no idea what one was >doing when jonesin for a fix; I would know exactly *no one* likely to have >the vaguest clue what is meant by that curious bit of slang. Back in those >dark days we went around not knowing stuff. The profound satisfaction of >knowing stuff is the greatest transcendent ecstasy of our times. And as you were writing this, I had just finished reading >Htech posts on Google books and decided to give it a spin. Holy shit. I typed in some very obscure, but personally very meaningful entries. And there they were -- the pages in living black and white. No amount of colorful profanity (and I've got a lot -- I AM a NYer) could describe my surprise. Because I was raised as a book person. Books are... sacred... to me. I'm not at all concerned about the digitization of books in concept. I hold no romantic allusions to that. However, the amount of information locked inside of them is so profound, that to have this kind of access is... ... well, honestly, it gets me teary-eyed. I appreciate the copyright concerns more than the average person. My own work is subject to it. And I don't know how we make all sides happy. But I'd be a liar if I didn't say the growing access selfishly excites me. I also don't know how we overcome the commercial biases of Google, et al, over the information we see. I'm really experiencing this with my son at the moment, overseeing his research for American History reports. I know information that I can't find on the Internet. Because someone else has deemed it not important. But I think it is. Hmmmmmm... Maybe search information needs to hit a critical mass to be really usable and not simply have the appearence of usability. I'm looking forward to that time. PJ From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 05:57:21 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:57:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701250614.l0P6E7fW013589@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright ... > > The profound satisfaction of knowing stuff is the > > greatest transcendent ecstasy of our times. > > I felt compelled to pull Lizbeth out of Second Life for a moment to read > this to her, my face glowing. She replied "He's such a geek, just like > you." She is too kind. {8-] This young lady has never known the suffering you and I went thru, the agony of not knowing stuff. > I love ya man. Likewise! Of course in an entirely... you know, um... platonic... manly, I mean, uh, you know, um... het... uh... like a couple of old cowb... uh, no no I didn't mean that, that one has been... ummm... {8^D > This group has been good for me since the day I found it back in 1995 > and discovered that I wasn't alone after all. - Jef Ja I share that sentiment. The internet gives us access to all kinds of arcane interests. Granted, extropy is one of the arcaner interests, perhaps the arcanest. Now there's an adjective that just seems to resist the superlative. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 06:03:52 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:03:52 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <23863589.46331169703675779.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <200701250614.l0P6E7fX013589@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of pjmanney ... > > And as you were writing this, I had just finished reading >Htech posts on > Google books and decided to give it a spin. > > Holy shit. > > I typed in some very obscure, but personally very meaningful entries. And > there they were -- the pages in living black and white... PJ PJ, do explain this google books of which you speak, and of which you ascribe holiness to excrement. Do not assume everyone is hip to this thing, my child. What thing did you spin? How did you spin this thing? Where were these pages in black and white? spike From amara at amara.com Thu Jan 25 06:40:29 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:40:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front Message-ID: Damien Broderick: >An ominous silence seems to have fallen. Everyone still stunned by >the State of the Onion speech? Since it was apparently so mind-numbing, I went looking for a transcript, and found one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html?nav=hcmodule (APPLAUSE) Which shows its true Monty Pythonesque colors. This tag cloud, however, would have been enough: http://www.jasongriffey.net/wp/2007/01/24/tag-cloud-for-2007-state-of-the-union/ Amara From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 09:17:49 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:17:49 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <200701250614.l0P6E7fX013589@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <23863589.46331169703675779.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <200701250614.l0P6E7fX013589@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 1/25/07, spike wrote: > > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of pjmanney > > > > And as you were writing this, I had just finished reading >Htech posts on > > Google books and decided to give it a spin. > > > > Holy shit. > > > > I typed in some very obscure, but personally very meaningful entries. And > > there they were -- the pages in living black and white... PJ > > PJ, do explain this google books of which you speak, and of which you > ascribe holiness to excrement. Do not assume everyone is hip to this thing, > my child. What thing did you spin? How did you spin this thing? Where > were these pages in black and white? > :) You could always try typing Google Book Search into the Google search box. :) BillK From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Thu Jan 25 08:46:05 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:46:05 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front References: <200701250432.l0P4W1hI000211@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <45B86E4D.8040500@thomasoliver.net> spike wrote: >>Damien, you sound like an argument addict jonesin' for a fix. ;-) >> >>PJ >> >[...] Twenty years ago, I would have no idea what one was >doing when jonesin for a fix; > "Got to have a Jones for this Jones for that This running with the Joneses boy Just ain?t where it?s at You gonna come back around To the sad sad truth the dirty lowdown" When Boz Scaggs had his big hit, "Lowdown" in 1976 -- that's when the "jonesin'" meme went mainstream on my timeline. I used to play that tune almost every night. I worked 6 nights a week back then. But most of the lyrics had faded from my mind. Now I can refresh my mind with a few keystrokes! I can renew old joys and easily access new joys. I'll need at least 500 more years to slake this jones. -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 11:13:29 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:13:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <200701250432.l0P4W1hI000211@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <16399328.11101169678103361.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <200701250432.l0P4W1hI000211@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 1/25/07, spike wrote: > > OK, a few seconds with google cleared up this otherwise baffling comment: > > Jonesin: A word used to describe an intense craving for a drug. Comes from > Great Jones Street in New York City, between Broadway and Lafayette Street, > a former junkie hangout. ex. "I'm jonesin' for some coke." > > The impact of the internet is difficult to adequately describe. The > futurists generally missed it, even when it was nearly upon us. They were > still talking about flying cars and cities under the sea, when this quiet > development of universal frictionless communication slipped under the radar > and changed our lives as we know it. We have a world of knowledge at our > fingertips. We know about everything that happens everywhere on this globe. > We have access to the ultra-obscure realms of knowledge, the above given as > a trivial example. Twenty years ago, I would have no idea what one was > doing when jonesin for a fix; I would know exactly *no one* likely to have > the vaguest clue what is meant by that curious bit of slang. Back in those > dark days we went around not knowing stuff. The profound satisfaction of > knowing stuff is the greatest transcendent ecstasy of our times. > Of course, being a jones yourself, you need to know these things. :) The Urban Dictionary reference you quote is *nearly* correct, but not quite. Great Jones Street The Great Jones By ED BOLAND Jr. Q. East Third Street becomes Great Jones Street between Broadway and the Bowery. Who was Jones and what was so great about him? A. Jones is Samuel Jones, a lawyer sometimes called Father of the New York Bar. He owned the land on which Great Jones Street now runs and bequeathed the property to the city with the caveat that any street that ran through the land be named for him. In 1789 a street was opened there, but New York already had a Jones Street in Greenwich Village. So the new street was named Great Jones Street because it was wider than the norm. In his desire to be remembered, Jones may have linked himself with a different aspect of the city's culture. The slang term "jones," meaning an addiction to drugs, is said to have originated among addicts who lived in Great Jones Alley, off Great Jones Street, between Broadway and Lafayette Street. ----------------------- So, it was Great Jones Alley that originated the 'jonesin' usage. Here's a picture of it (scroll about halfway down) BillK From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Jan 25 16:15:26 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:15:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front Message-ID: <27992646.88221169741726420.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Bill K said: >You could always try typing Google Book Search into the Google search box. :) Precisely: http://books.google.com/books?q=extropy&as_brr=0 http://books.google.com/books?q=extropian&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN080213520X&id=GzP-KwPFn5YC&pg=RA1-PA356&lpg=RA1-PA356&ots=U1c2Qg5tLt&dq=extropy&sig=rskvKwlecir7mVuUQaiA9EA8YKU#PRA1-PA302,M1 Go crazy. PJ From artillo at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 16:33:50 2007 From: artillo at comcast.net (Brian J. Shores) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:33:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000901c7409e$a4e61120$650fa8c0@BJSMain> And then there was Jones the cat from Alien. No relation. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 6:13 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front On 1/25/07, spike wrote: > > OK, a few seconds with google cleared up this otherwise baffling > comment: > > Jonesin: A word used to describe an intense craving for a drug. Comes > from Great Jones Street in New York City, between Broadway and > Lafayette Street, a former junkie hangout. ex. "I'm jonesin' for some > coke." > > The impact of the internet is difficult to adequately describe. The > futurists generally missed it, even when it was nearly upon us. They > were still talking about flying cars and cities under the sea, when > this quiet development of universal frictionless communication slipped > under the radar and changed our lives as we know it. We have a world > of knowledge at our fingertips. We know about everything that happens > everywhere on this globe. We have access to the ultra-obscure realms > of knowledge, the above given as a trivial example. Twenty years ago, > I would have no idea what one was doing when jonesin for a fix; I > would know exactly *no one* likely to have the vaguest clue what is > meant by that curious bit of slang. Back in those dark days we went > around not knowing stuff. The profound satisfaction of knowing stuff > is the greatest transcendent ecstasy of our times. > Of course, being a jones yourself, you need to know these things. :) The Urban Dictionary reference you quote is *nearly* correct, but not quite. Great Jones Street The Great Jones By ED BOLAND Jr. Q. East Third Street becomes Great Jones Street between Broadway and the Bowery. Who was Jones and what was so great about him? A. Jones is Samuel Jones, a lawyer sometimes called Father of the New York Bar. He owned the land on which Great Jones Street now runs and bequeathed the property to the city with the caveat that any street that ran through the land be named for him. In 1789 a street was opened there, but New York already had a Jones Street in Greenwich Village. So the new street was named Great Jones Street because it was wider than the norm. In his desire to be remembered, Jones may have linked himself with a different aspect of the city's culture. The slang term "jones," meaning an addiction to drugs, is said to have originated among addicts who lived in Great Jones Alley, off Great Jones Street, between Broadway and Lafayette Street. ----------------------- So, it was Great Jones Alley that originated the 'jonesin' usage. Here's a picture of it (scroll about halfway down) 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: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 1/24/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.10/651 - Release Date: 1/24/2007 From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 17:08:39 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:08:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <000901c7409e$a4e61120$650fa8c0@BJSMain> References: <000901c7409e$a4e61120$650fa8c0@BJSMain> Message-ID: I first heard the term sometime around 1970 in the Top-40 hit "Basketball Jones" by those most famous stoners Cheech and Chong: "Basketball Jones, I got a Basketball Jones Got a Basketball Jones, oh baby, oo-oo-oo Yes, I am the victim of a Basketball Jones Ever since I was a little baby, I always be dribblin' In fac', I was de baddest dribbler in the whole neighborhood Then one day, my mama bought me a basketball And I loved that basketball I took that basketball with me everywhere I went That basketball was like a basketball to me I even put that basketball underneath my pillow Maybe that's why I can't sleep at night I need help, ladies and gentlemens..." http://www.e-stoned.com/rec/25-Basketball-Jones-lyrics/ -gts From discwuzit at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 19:03:28 2007 From: discwuzit at yahoo.com (John B) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:03:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 40, Issue 25 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070125190328.74563.qmail@web54515.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:13:35 -0800 Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Poetry: O Brave New World Natasha wrote: > If you could change any words within the soliloquy of Miranda (with > Shakespeare's meaning, not Huxley's) to reflect a transhumanist > world, what would you write? > > "O Wonder! > How many goodly creatures there are here! > How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world > That has such people in't!" O, Internet! How many goodly thoughts there are here! How diverse mankind is! O clever world That adapts itself recursively! -John B ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html From discwuzit at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 19:21:22 2007 From: discwuzit at yahoo.com (John B) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:21:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 40, Issue 25 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <860252.61944.qm@web54503.mail.yahoo.com> Message: 21 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:47:59 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Progress? What Progress? > There is an enjoyable rant in today's Guardian newspaper. > Thanks for the link! > The age of technological revolution is 100 years dead > > Dazzled by neophiliacs, we have lost the power of scepticism - the > new is grotesquely oversold, the tried and tested neglected > > Simon Jenkins Wednesday January 24, 2007 > > I rise each morning, shave with soap and razor, don clothes of > cotton and wool, read a paper, drink a coffee heated by gas or > electricity and go to work with the aid of petrol and an internal > combustion engine. At a centrally heated office I type on a > Qwerty keyboard; I might later visit a pub or theatre. Most people > I know do likewise. > > Not one of these activities has altered qualitatively over the past > century, while in the previous hundred years they altered beyond > recognition. We do not live in the age of technological revolution. > We live in the age of technological stasis, but do not realise it. Did you or your neighbors raise, weave, dye, & tailor said cotton and wool (or spike's leather)? Who designed those particular styles, and how'd they become popular? Were those articles you read written by locals, or were they spread from afar at the speed of the net? Where'd that coffee come from, to say nothing of how it got brewed? How about the petrol, gas, or electricity - who produced 'em, and how are the funds for their use gathered, distributed & spent? The central heating - how is it controlled? How about the thermal insulation that it relies on and the materials science behind it? When's the last time you heard of someone causing critical problems for themselves and their neighbors by working on the lighting and/or heating, unlike the legendary Mrs O'Leary's Cow? Is this stasis? In my opinion - no. It avoids many of the major changes in the last 100 years, or at least attempts to gloss over them with historical normality. Quoting from the cited article, "To Edgerton the thesis that civilisation must innovate or die is rubbish. Nations are not sharks that must move to breathe." Tell that to the Japanese facing Nelson's guns. China and opium problems. England and the Spanish Armada. The US and islamic fanaticism or South American narco-capitalism. *shrug* The 'movement' modes are different, but stasis can (still IMO) bring big problems. -John ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html From scerir at libero.it Thu Jan 25 21:02:56 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:02:56 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front References: <000901c7409e$a4e61120$650fa8c0@BJSMain> Message-ID: <002501c740c4$30531f30$a8941f97@archimede> > So, it was Great Jones Alley > that originated the 'jonesin' usage. hmmm http://www.flickr.com/photos/dave___s/88482168/ From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jan 25 21:59:21 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:59:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] GAME: Photographing Superman Message-ID: <380-22007142521592140@M2W011.mail2web.com> Need or want a break from what you were doing before you go opened this post? http://hk.promo.yahoo.com/movie/superman/Stop_Press_Game/ Enjoy! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Jan 25 22:08:13 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:08:13 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] A surprise neighbour in the Dewar Message-ID: <3801.163.1.72.81.1169762893.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> http://www.worth1000.com/emailthis.asp?entry=349671 Definitely for my transhuman humour folder. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Jan 25 23:14:33 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:14:33 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <59790.86.130.29.128.1169766873.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Anna Taylor wrote: > I am doing a questionnaire on Senses and was looking > for some help regarding this matter. > > What do you think is your most keen sense? While vision is the modality I value the most and tend to use for thinking, I have noticed that I am very interested in smell. I don't think I have any unusual acuity or skills in "reading" smells, but I do tend to take note of how things smell, interesting variations, the scent trails left by moving objects and people as well as unusual juxtapositions. I have trouble reading some books because of the smell of their bindings distract me. I think I'm somewhat of a low-level synesthete (or just have very vivid associations), because most smells do give me faint impressions of color and shape. Sandalwood is orange, oblong and faintly grainy, after-the-rain-smell perfectly clear and angular. The smell of spoiled milk is a whitish-blue translucent curve, while butyric acid is a brown serrated line while propionic acid is a translucent serrated line - an interesting mapping now when I think of it, as they are chemically related and all seem to have the same "odor swoosch". Smell is interesting because it always deals with superpositions. We recognize a pure color, point of touch or pure tone, but there is no corresponding unit of smell. Physiologically speaking there are of course individual receptors, but we do not recognize smells that just activate one of them. I wonder if odors could be used in ambient information visualisation (odification?). Imagine having the relative development of your stocks waft through the ventilation as a discreet odor mix. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jan 25 23:26:44 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:26:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <59790.86.130.29.128.1169766873.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se > References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <59790.86.130.29.128.1169766873.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070125172503.0225ef58@satx.rr.com> At 12:14 AM 1/26/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: >I wonder if odors could be used in ambient information visualisation >(odification?). Imagine having the relative development of your stocks >waft through the ventilation as a discreet odor mix. "How's your portfolio holding up today?" "Stinks, man. Eewww. Just foul." From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Thu Jan 25 22:39:53 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:39:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A surprise neighbour in the Dewar Message-ID: <380-220071425223953227@M2W026.mail2web.com> From: Anders >http://www.worth1000.com/emailthis.asp?entry=349671 Yikes! -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From mmbutler at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 23:50:44 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:50:44 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: Neural bottleneck limits multitasking? Message-ID: <7d79ed890701251550p41753052nb44681f6b9bfbc26@mail.gmail.com> Interesting if not utterly persuasive. I think there are modality issues that I can't tell if this work addresses. In particular, I'm not sure to what degree the example at top (cell phone + driving) is more than a convenient article "hook". What seems to be critical is the factoring of priorities so you don't get "priority inversion" and other operating-system-like misbehaviors. For instance,if the orbitofrontal cortex etc. has a clear notion/habit that the phone conversation has lower priority than driving, what does that do to the likelihood of a swapout at a bad moment? One of the ironies of attention is: If everything matters, then nothing matters. As paper authors like to say, "More research is needed." MMB via Eurekalert from Vanderbilt University http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/vu-nbf011807.php === Neural bottleneck found that thwarts multi-tasking Rene Marois and Paul Dux Many people think they can safely drive while talking on their cell phones. Vanderbilt neuroscientists Paul E. Dux and Rene Marois have found that when it comes to handling two things at once, your brain, while fast, isn't that fast. "Why is it that with our incredibly complex and sophisticated brain, with 100 billion neurons processing information at rates of up to a thousand times a second, we still have such a crippling inability to do two tasks at once?" Marois, associate professor of Psychology, asked. "For example, what is it about our brain that gives us such a hard time at being able to drive and talk on a cell phone simultaneously?" Researchers have long thought that a central "bottleneck" exists in the brain that prevents us from doing two things at once. Dux and Marois are the first to identify the regions of the brain responsible for this bottleneck, by examining patterns of neural activity over time. Their results were published in the Dec. 21 issue of Neuron. snip The results revealed that the central bottleneck was caused by the inability of the lateral frontal and prefrontal cortex, and also the superior frontal cortex, to process the two tasks at once. Both areas have been shown in previous experiments to play a critical role in cognitive control. "We determined these brain regions responded to tasks irrespective of the senses involved, they were engaged in selecting the appropriate response, and, most importantly, they showed 'queing' of neural activity--the neural response to the second task was postponed until the response to the first was completed," Dux said. "Neural activity seemed to be delayed for the second task when the two tasks were presented nearly simultaneously - within 300 milliseconds of each other," Marois said. "If individuals have a second or more between tasks, we did not see this delay. "This temporal delay is the essence of dual-task interference for tasks that require actions. By using time-resolved fMRI, we can see its signature in the brain," he continued. "These findings allow us to really now focus on this set of brain areas and to understand why these areas cannot process two tasks at once." The researchers are interested in further exploring what is happening in the bottleneck to slow performance and believe the work may have future implications for people performing complex tasks. "It may be possible to look to the sort of tasks people are going to have to do in a very complex environment, such as flying a plane, and find out under what circumstances these tasks may be less vulnerable to dual-task interference," Dux added. .... -- 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 neptune at superlink.net Fri Jan 26 00:19:40 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:19:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Water Marks the Asthenosphere Message-ID: <005a01c740df$ac647d60$03893cd1@pavilion> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/315/5810/297g Reading this, I'm wondering if a lot of water on other words might be integrated into the mantle or other strata... Perhaps Mars has lots of water, but it's all part of a mineral matrix deep below the surface. What about Luna? Regards, Dan From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Jan 26 01:34:45 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 02:34:45 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070125172503.0225ef58@satx.rr.com> References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <59790.86.130.29.128.1169766873.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070125172503.0225ef58@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <61634.86.130.29.128.1169775285.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:14 AM 1/26/2007 +0100, Anders wrote: > >>I wonder if odors could be used in ambient information visualisation >>(odification?). Imagine having the relative development of your stocks >>waft through the ventilation as a discreet odor mix. > > "How's your portfolio holding up today?" > "Stinks, man. Eewww. Just foul." One problem is that we adapt to smell, so we would only notice it consciously when coming into the office and then just note it subconsciously for the rest of the day. The exception are certain particular foul smells that we tend to detect very quickly when they arise. They might be useful as warnings that something is going seriously amiss - "argh! my website is burning and my simulation is rotten!" A fun finding is that we humans can do scent tracking: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2007/01/directional-olfaction.html I have actually tried a less extreme method (the subjects in the paper had blocked sight and hearing) of it myself, convincing me that I can track at least some characteristic odors reasonably well (humans are interesting to follow this day, one can start training on a cold day when the heat trace makes it easier). Maybe that could be used for data mining. Data is scented, and as you pursue the right context the smell gets more "right". My room currently smells of dust, lavender, a weak hint of Belgian chocolate and a somewhat pungent odor from the insecticide pellet (1,4-dichlorobenzene?) in the box with the mounted Dorysthenes Walkeri beetle. The new electronic smell from my phone USB connector and phone seems to have ebbed since last week. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 02:12:55 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:12:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <61634.86.130.29.128.1169775285.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <59790.86.130.29.128.1169766873.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070125172503.0225ef58@satx.rr.com> <61634.86.130.29.128.1169775285.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <62c14240701251812w2d126e55tc063a6ba042db10f@mail.gmail.com> On 1/25/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > A fun finding is that we humans can do scent tracking: > makes it easier). Maybe that could be used for data mining. Data is > scented, and as you pursue the right context the smell gets more "right". > > beetle. The new electronic smell from my phone USB connector and phone > seems to have ebbed since last week. Would this information still be "smell" if the olfactory modality is usurped for some other purpose, does it retain an inherent olfactory association? From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jan 26 02:38:31 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:38:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701260238.l0Q2co5w008723@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > > On 1/25/07, spike wrote: > > PJ, do explain this google books of which you speak... > > :) > You could always try typing Google Book Search into the Google search box. > :) > > BillK I propose a word that means "you have asked a question to which you could have the answer within seconds if you merely use your search engine." This word might be used a lot, so let us have a single syllable word, which returns exactly *no* hits when googled (when googled upon?). I found after about 20 tries: dwoorb. (What is the shortest easily pronounceable word that returns zero google hits?) Now when someone posts a googlable question, extropians who are hip might merely reply dwoorb. I dwoorbed myself by asking PJ about google books. I must remember I am living in 2007 and stop all this reprehensible dwoorbing. Very soon google will reference dwoorb to this post, therefore asking the definition of dwoorb creates a cool self-referencing dwoorb. One can imagine finding some future archive entry: >>>>>>> How many feet are in a mile? >>>>>> Dwoorb. >>>>> Dwoorb? What is this dwoorb? >>>> Dwoorb squared. >>> Huh? What are you talking about? Why is everyone dwoorbing me? >> Dwoorb dwoorb. > I don't understand. Please explain. Dwoorb, you silly goof, dwoorb! {8-] spike From moulton at moulton.com Fri Jan 26 03:25:47 2007 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:25:47 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <200701260238.l0Q2co5w008723@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701260238.l0Q2co5w008723@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1169781948.2975.188.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 18:38 -0800, spike wrote: > >>>>>>> How many feet are in a mile? > >>>>>> Dwoorb. > >>>>> Dwoorb? What is this dwoorb? > >>>> Dwoorb squared. > >>> Huh? What are you talking about? Why is everyone dwoorbing me? > >> Dwoorb dwoorb. > > I don't understand. Please explain. > Dwoorb, you silly goof, dwoorb! Not unlike the old *nix scenario: Person A: how do I find how a command works? Person B: man Person A: huh? what about man? Person B: man man Fred From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jan 26 04:33:17 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:33:17 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <1169781948.2975.188.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200701260433.l0Q4XQns003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 18:38 -0800, spike wrote: ... > > Dwoorb, you silly goof, dwoorb! > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton > Not unlike the old *nix scenario: > > Person A: how do I find how a command works? > > Person B: man > > Person A: huh? what about man? > > Person B: man man > > Fred Fred, soon none of the younger geeks will get unix jokes. {8^D spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jan 26 04:54:14 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:54:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] man man In-Reply-To: <200701260433.l0Q4XQns003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1169781948.2975.188.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200701260433.l0Q4XQns003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070125225155.02384918@satx.rr.com> At 08:33 PM 1/25/2007 -0800, Spike wrote: > > Person B: man man > >Fred, soon none of the younger geeks will get unix jokes. {8^D Ha1 You Unix dweebs had it easy! Back when I punched Hollerith cards for a mainframe, we zeroed registers with a comic book command, ZAP (zero add packed). Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jan 26 05:27:09 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:27:09 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] man man In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070125225155.02384918@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200701260527.l0Q5RHK3007451@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > > At 08:33 PM 1/25/2007 -0800, Spike wrote: > > > > Person B: man man > > > >Fred, soon none of the younger geeks will get unix jokes. {8^D > > Ha1 You Unix dweebs had it easy! Back when I punched Hollerith cards > for a mainframe, we zeroed registers with a comic book command, ZAP > (zero add packed). > > Damien Broderick Luxury! I remember back when the operand-1 (b1+d1) was first initialized. Damien you youngsters today have it easy with your mod ZAP. When I was young, the base register was still acidic and the displacement was measured in honest cubic inches, not this sissy ddd1 and ddd2. Oh but we had fun. spike From mmbutler at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 06:31:02 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:31:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] man man In-Reply-To: <200701260527.l0Q5RHK3007451@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070125225155.02384918@satx.rr.com> <200701260527.l0Q5RHK3007451@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890701252231x4425cd2w41a78cfd00242f77@mail.gmail.com> Welp. WE had it HARD. WE didn't even have ones *and* zeroes. We had to cobble ones out of piles of zeroes squasht 'til flat and tilted up on t'sides like. AND there was only one way to get the binary into the computer--we pushed the bits down the wire with our FINGERS 'til they were RAW an' BLEEDIN' (the fingers, mind, not the bits)... Like choking a baby python on peas, it was. You'd see the bits goin' down and the wires would convulse for a spell, and eventually the answer would barf back out on a single wee grain-of-wheat lamp. Classic Morse code it was, 1850s-style, none'a yer fancy International Morse, thank you very much. But we were HAPPY. On 1/25/07, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > > > > At 08:33 PM 1/25/2007 -0800, Spike wrote: > > > > > > Person B: man man > > > > > >Fred, soon none of the younger geeks will get unix jokes. {8^D > > > > Ha1 You Unix dweebs had it easy! Back when I punched Hollerith cards > > for a mainframe, we zeroed registers with a comic book command, ZAP > > (zero add packed). > > > > Damien Broderick > > Luxury! I remember back when the operand-1 (b1+d1) was first initialized. > Damien you youngsters today have it easy with your mod ZAP. When I was > young, the base register was still acidic and the displacement was measured > in honest cubic inches, not this sissy ddd1 and ddd2. Oh but we had fun. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 scerir at libero.it Fri Jan 26 07:42:39 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:42:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <59790.86.130.29.128.1169766873.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <000401c7411d$8eefdd90$94961f97@archimede> Anders Sandberg > Smell is interesting because it always deals with superpositions. We > recognize a pure color, point of touch or pure tone, but there is no > corresponding unit of smell. Physiologically speaking there are of course > individual receptors, but we do not recognize smells that just activate > one of them. It seems there is something new (2006), in the literature. The revival of the old theory by Luca Turin. [review] http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/the-quantum-mechanics-of-sme ll/ [sciam] http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=885622AA-E7F2-99DF-3859D89E5980A4 B2 [mechanism] http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611205 [new molecules, for perfums] http://www.flexitral.com/research.html [book by Luca Turin] http://www.faber.co.uk/book_detail.html?bid=35988&clid=17 From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 26 09:57:44 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:57:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Water Marks the Asthenosphere In-Reply-To: <005a01c740df$ac647d60$03893cd1@pavilion> References: <005a01c740df$ac647d60$03893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20070126095744.GF21677@leitl.org> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 07:19:40PM -0500, Technotranscendence wrote: > Reading this, I'm wondering if a lot of water on other words might be > integrated into the mantle or other strata... Perhaps Mars has lots of There seems to be lots of ice under the surface, with even occasional surface melts. > water, but it's all part of a mineral matrix deep below the surface. > What about Luna? Most of it was baked out during formation, but it might have recaptured enough volatiles in the polar cryotraps from impacts, which are now most likely tightly bound by alumosilicates (rather like concrete). Baking this out by putting the material in the focus of a large elliptic mirror (made from aluminized mylar) and recapturing it is rather trivial. Provided, your protons are really there, of course. It is also arguable why one would need volatiles on the Moon, unless one considers pressurizing a lava tube or excavating an artificial cavity to build a habitat for primates. This only makes sense at a very late state of the game, which primary stages are driven by remotely operated and autonomous automata. By the time you're done, people might look sufficiently different (or be succeeded by their automata) so that heavy life support based on volatiles could look quaint, or completely obsolete. -- 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 Fri Jan 26 09:58:18 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:58:18 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <62c14240701251812w2d126e55tc063a6ba042db10f@mail.gmail.com> References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <59790.86.130.29.128.1169766873.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7.0.1.0.2.20070125172503.0225ef58@satx.rr.com> <61634.86.130.29.128.1169775285.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <62c14240701251812w2d126e55tc063a6ba042db10f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62637.86.130.29.128.1169805498.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Mike Dougherty wrote: > Would this information still be "smell" if the olfactory modality is > usurped for some other purpose, does it retain an inherent olfactory > association? Good question. People using a ultrasound -> tactile mapping to control a robot in a labyrinth using sensory information projected onto their backs report experiencing a sense of space after a few hours. But most visualizations of something tend to remain in the visual modality, even when they are of sounds. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Jan 26 10:04:41 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:04:41 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <000401c7411d$8eefdd90$94961f97@archimede> References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <59790.86.130.29.128.1169766873.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <000401c7411d$8eefdd90$94961f97@archimede> Message-ID: <62732.86.130.29.128.1169805881.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> scerir wrote: > Anders Sandberg >> Physiologically speaking there are of >> course >> individual receptors, but we do not recognize smells that just activate >> one of them. > > It seems there is something new (2006), in the literature. > The revival of the old theory by Luca Turin. According to an olfaction researcher I know this theory is junk. I can't tell myself, but it looks like the usual split between physicists and neuroscientists when physicists claim some unusual physical process occurs in the brain (cmp quantum theories of the mind) and the neuroscientists don't see any need for obtruse explanations. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jan 26 08:56:33 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:56:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Water Marks the Asthenosphere (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070126035624.039e4008@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:19 PM 1/25/2007 -0500, you wrote: >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/315/5810/297g > >Reading this, I'm wondering if a lot of water on other words might be >integrated into the mantle or other strata... Perhaps Mars has lots of >water, but it's all part of a mineral matrix deep below the surface. >What about Luna? Most of it is dry, really dry. The origin of the moon is such that it was subjected to out gassing into a vacuum at high temperature. The exception is that a bit of water might have accumulated in the cold traps at the lunar poles. Followed this subject for decades. Keith From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Jan 26 10:16:15 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:16:15 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] man man In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890701252231x4425cd2w41a78cfd00242f77@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070125225155.02384918@satx.rr.com> <200701260527.l0Q5RHK3007451@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7d79ed890701252231x4425cd2w41a78cfd00242f77@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62781.86.130.29.128.1169806575.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> My computing teacher in highschool had once been a Ph.D. in the team that built the first Swedish computer. The memory was Williams-Kilburn type cathode ray memories in big racks. My teacher is probably the only person in the world who has managed to have his foot crushed by a byte when he accidentally pulled out one too far. I still remember an exam he gave where we had to write small assembly code programs for the machine. At the start the programs invariably consisted of a series of "read the next word from punched tape"-instructions: each instruction was only half a word long, so it could read the next two. That way you only had to flip the switches to make the first read instruction to start your program. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From neptune at superlink.net Fri Jan 26 12:43:14 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:43:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Water Marks the Asthenosphere References: <005a01c740df$ac647d60$03893cd1@pavilion> <20070126095744.GF21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <005b01c74147$8c503a60$c1893cd1@pavilion> On Friday, January 26, 2007 4:57 AM Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org wrote: >> Reading this, I'm wondering if a lot of water on >> other words might be integrated into the mantle >> or other strata... Perhaps Mars has lots of > > There seems to be lots of ice under the surface, > with even occasional surface melts. Yes. I was wondering about the absolute amounts... On another list, I wrote: "Of course, this doesn't mean that, e.g., you might be able to easily use or release this water. My first thought was, of course, imagine flushing it out [on a body like Mars]. But my quick follow-up was: how and what would that do to the mantle?" >> water, but it's all part of a mineral matrix deep >> below the surface. What about Luna? > > Most of it was baked out during formation, Yes, that might be so, but what if it's not? Is there enough data on the lunar interior to know? If large amounts of water can be incorporated into Earth's mantle and not baked out, might not something similar be true about Luna? Of course, it could be that the water in Earth's mantle can't be baked out because the only place it has to go -- up -- has been saturated with water -- and also because there are processes to add water to the mantle (so that if there's a loss, there's some balance that maintains a stable equilibrium or the loss is so low that huge amounts still remain). > but it might have recaptured enough volatiles in > the polar cryotraps from impacts, which are now > most likely tightly bound by alumosilicates (rather > like concrete). I've read about something like this a few years ago in _American Scientist_. However, it remains speculative and the process mentioned could happen anywhere on the Moon -- not just in the polar regions. If the mixing were sufficient to put water lower enough or the mineral binding tight enough (olivine would capture lots of water, wouldn't it) so that the temperatures it's likely to experience later on wouldn't be able to get it out, it might be there in lots of places -- not just the poles. I think the article set some limits on the degree to which this would happen and set a depth of about a meter or so for such mixes. This would be easy to test. > Baking this out by putting the material in the focus > of a large elliptic mirror (made from aluminized mylar) > and recapturing it is rather trivial. Provided, your > protons are really there, of course. Since you mention protons, wasn't there also talking about recovering solar wind hydrogen, though the amounts would be very small, from lunar regolith? > It is also arguable why one would need volatiles on > the Moon, unless one considers pressurizing a lava > tube or excavating an artificial cavity to build a habitat > for primates. This only makes sense at a very late state > of the game, which primary stages are driven by > remotely operated and autonomous automata. Colonization or for industrial and other processes that need water. > By the time you're done, people might look sufficiently > different (or be succeeded by their automata) so that > heavy life support based on volatiles could look quaint, > or completely obsolete. This is possible, though I would prefer to hedge my bets. Some here argued against sending a probe to Pluto because, by 2015, better, faster craft would beat it there. Well, 2015 hasn't arrived yet, but what if 2015 looks a lot like 2007 -- save for higher storage hard drives, a few more genomes being mapped, and nanotube TVs? Regards, Dan From randall at randallsquared.com Fri Jan 26 15:44:33 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:44:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <200701260433.l0Q4XQns003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701260433.l0Q4XQns003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <002D6975-3922-46E8-8444-9CAB2D521AFC@randallsquared.com> On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:33 PM, spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton > >> Not unlike the old *nix scenario: >> >> Person A: how do I find how a command works? >> >> Person B: man >> >> Person A: huh? what about man? >> >> Person B: man man >> >> Fred > > Fred, soon none of the younger geeks will get unix jokes. {8^D Are you kidding? Linux and Mac OS X are gaining market share, are they not? Both of these are unix, so unix will be around for some time. :) -- Randall Randall "It's alright, it's alright, 'cause the system never fails; The good guys are in power, and the bad guys are in jail." From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 17:56:26 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:56:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: <002D6975-3922-46E8-8444-9CAB2D521AFC@randallsquared.com> References: <200701260433.l0Q4XQns003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <002D6975-3922-46E8-8444-9CAB2D521AFC@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: On 1/26/07, Randall Randall wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:33 PM, spike wrote: > > Fred, soon none of the younger geeks will get unix jokes. {8^D > > Are you kidding? Linux and Mac OS X are gaining > market share, are they not? Both of these are unix, > so unix will be around for some time. :) > Regrettably I have failed to read Spike's mind on this comment. But perhaps he refers to the idea that if Linux and Mac OS X are expanding in use (as I also agree) then it is not because the great unwashed masses are learning to use the command line. It is because Linux and Mac are increasing their GUI capabilities so that new users never need to use the command line. In the increasingly rare occasions when command line usage is required to fix a Linux problem you can usually find a Linux geek in a subterranean dungeon somewhere. You just have to use jelly babies and coffee to lure him out, blinking in the unaccustomed daylight, to fix it with a few magical commands. (You also have to put up with being told at length how big an idiot you are, but that's a small price to pay). :) BillK From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 26 18:50:10 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:50:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: References: <200701260433.l0Q4XQns003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <002D6975-3922-46E8-8444-9CAB2D521AFC@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: <20070126185009.GU21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 05:56:26PM +0000, BillK wrote: > But perhaps he refers to the idea that if Linux and Mac OS X are > expanding in use (as I also agree) then it is not because the great > unwashed masses are learning to use the command line. It is because There are advantages in OS X which make it also quite attractive for developers. On the other hand, we've learned from the past from many hard lessons to never, ever to get hooked on proprietary systems again. So always maintain a fallback alternative. You *will* need it. Eventually. > Linux and Mac are increasing their GUI capabilities so that new users > never need to use the command line. Of course, many power users have to embrace the command line at some point, whether willingly, or dragged in by the hair, kicking and screaming. > In the increasingly rare occasions when command line usage is required > to fix a Linux problem you can usually find a Linux geek in a Frequently, to fix a problem which CLI use gave you in the first place... But, if you don't like problems, OS X is a superior solution, at least for time being. > subterranean dungeon somewhere. You just have to use jelly babies and > coffee to lure him out, blinking in the unaccustomed daylight, to fix > it with a few magical commands. (You also have to put up with being > told at length how big an idiot you are, but that's a small price to > pay). :) You probably don't even recognize Linux users which don't fit above stereotype as such. (Oh, and before asking one, first make sure she's not a *BSD user... these will tear your head clean off, if you dare to confuse them with a common Pygoscelis). -- 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 randall at randallsquared.com Fri Jan 26 19:09:39 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:09:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: References: <200701260433.l0Q4XQns003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <002D6975-3922-46E8-8444-9CAB2D521AFC@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: <3B610171-8A0E-4824-B5BB-63AB6C97D305@randallsquared.com> On Jan 26, 2007, at 12:56 PM, BillK wrote: > On 1/26/07, Randall Randall wrote: >> On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:33 PM, spike wrote: >>> Fred, soon none of the younger geeks will get unix jokes. {8^D >> >> Are you kidding? Linux and Mac OS X are gaining >> market share, are they not? Both of these are unix, >> so unix will be around for some time. :) > > Regrettably I have failed to read Spike's mind on this comment. > > But perhaps he refers to the idea that if Linux and Mac OS X are > expanding in use (as I also agree) then it is not because the great > unwashed masses are learning to use the command line. It is because > Linux and Mac are increasing their GUI capabilities so that new users > never need to use the command line. > > In the increasingly rare occasions when command line usage is required > to fix a Linux problem you can usually find a Linux geek in a > subterranean dungeon somewhere. You just have to use jelly babies and > coffee to lure him out, blinking in the unaccustomed daylight, to fix > it with a few magical commands. (You also have to put up with being > told at length how big an idiot you are, but that's a small price to > pay). :) Well, but Spike specifically said "younger *geeks*" (my emphasis). If someone is a Windows geek, I could see how they could easily not be familiar with the command line, even on Windows. But a Linux or Mac geek, in today's world, will certainly know all about the unixy CLI goodness available in both of these systems. I guess there are still some "legacy" Mac users who are barely aware that their Macs are now real computers (sorry; couldn't resist), but surely not many? Signed, a Mac geek since leaving desktop Linux in 2003. ;) Perhaps this is not the sort of discussion for which Damien was hoping, eh? -- Randall Randall "This is a fascinating question, right up there with whether rocks fall because of gravity or being dropped, and whether 3+5=5+3 because addition is commutative or because they both equal 8." - Scott Aaronson From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Jan 26 17:43:25 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:43:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Water Marks the Asthenosphere In-Reply-To: <005b01c74147$8c503a60$c1893cd1@pavilion> References: <005a01c740df$ac647d60$03893cd1@pavilion> <20070126095744.GF21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070126122259.039f6448@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:43 AM 1/26/2007 -0500, Dan wrote: >On Friday, January 26, 2007 4:57 AM Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org wrote: > >>What about Luna? > > > > Most of it was baked out during formation, > >Yes, that might be so, but what if it's not? Is there enough data on >the lunar interior to know? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon The Moon is a differentiated body, being composed of a geochemically distinct crust, mantle, and core. This structure is believed to have resulted from the fractional crystallization of a magma ocean shortly after its formation about 4.5 billion years ago. The energy required to melt the outer portion of the Moon is commonly attributed to a giant impact event that is postulated to have formed the Earth-Moon system, and the subsequent reaccretion of material in Earth orbit. *** Today, the giant impact hypothesis for forming the Earth-Moon system is widely accepted by the scientific community. In this theory, the impact of a Mars-sized body (which has been referred to as Theia or Orpheus) into the proto-Earth is postulated to have put enough material into circumterrestrial orbit to form the Moon.[1] Given that planetary bodies are believed to have formed by the hierarchical accretion of smaller to larger sized bodies, it is now recognized that giant impact events such as this should be expected to have occurred for some planets. Computer simulations modeling this impact can account for the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system, as well as the small size of the lunar core.[29] Unresolved questions concerning this theory are the relative sizes of the proto-Earth and impactor, and the proportion of material from the proto-Earth and impactor that contribute to making the Moon. The formation of the Moon is believed to have occurred at 4.527 ? 0.01 billion years, about 30 to 50 million years after the origin of the solar system.[30] snip >If large amounts of water can be >incorporated into Earth's mantle and not baked out, might not something >similar be true about Luna? The stuff that made up Luna's mantle got baked *really hot* in a vacuum before it aggregated into the moon. That's why it is so dry. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis Keith From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 26 20:23:50 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:23:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Water Marks the Asthenosphere In-Reply-To: <005b01c74147$8c503a60$c1893cd1@pavilion> References: <005a01c740df$ac647d60$03893cd1@pavilion> <20070126095744.GF21677@leitl.org> <005b01c74147$8c503a60$c1893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20070126202350.GH21677@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 07:43:14AM -0500, Technotranscendence wrote: > Yes. I was wondering about the absolute amounts... On another list, I > wrote: "Of course, this doesn't mean that, e.g., you might be able to > easily use or release this water. My first thought was, of course, About the only use for lunar volatiles is fuel and closed-loop ecosystems. Both are questionable. Plasma thrusters are much preferrable, once you're orbiting, and linear motors (maglev) can throw things into orbit using just electrons, which are recycled after each shot. > imagine flushing it out [on a body like Mars]. But my quick follow-up > was: how and what would that do to the mantle?" You're talking geology, I'm talking industry and colonization. > Yes, that might be so, but what if it's not? Is there enough data on I would be very surprised, given that Moon was completely molten after formation, and it can't even hold volatiles in the current state. It's surface is what we down here call UHV, and it takes baked-out stainless apparatus, turbovacs and cryotraps to come close. (Of course, once you start cranking seriously, you've got industrial pollution: HV instead of UHV, at least regionally. Lunar flora/fauna wept & shriveled up). > the lunar interior to know? If large amounts of water can be > incorporated into Earth's mantle and not baked out, might not something > similar be true about Luna? Of course, it could be that the water in Why do you need that much water? > Earth's mantle can't be baked out because the only place it has to go -- > up -- has been saturated with water -- and also because there are > processes to add water to the mantle (so that if there's a loss, there's > some balance that maintains a stable equilibrium or the loss is so low > that huge amounts still remain). I somehow sense that Amara will shortly have a word with you. > I've read about something like this a few years ago in _American > Scientist_. However, it remains speculative and the process mentioned Of course it's speculative, but at least we have detector data, which might or might coincide with protons. > could happen anywhere on the Moon -- not just in the polar regions. If You can only catch vapor in a permanently shadowed lunar crater, which is a reasonable approximation of a cryptrap lined with chemisorbent. During two weeks of lunar night the temperature drops (-181C, as compared to -233C in polar crater shadow), but the regolith layer is thin, and daytime temperatures are brutal (+123C in UHV is baking-out brutal), so it *will* achieve escape velocity soon after sunrise. > the mixing were sufficient to put water lower enough or the mineral > binding tight enough (olivine would capture lots of water, wouldn't it) > so that the temperatures it's likely to experience later on wouldn't be > able to get it out, it might be there in lots of places -- not just the > poles. I think the article set some limits on the degree to which this I think we'd be lucky to find some at the poles, but of course we'll take anything we'll find anywhere. > would happen and set a depth of about a meter or so for such mixes. Regolith layer on the surface is few cm thick at best, dunno about craters. > Since you mention protons, wasn't there also talking about recovering > solar wind hydrogen, though the amounts would be very small, from lunar > regolith? If you bake it hard enough, it will come out as water, regardless what it is. (It might be dirty water, at least in polar deposits, but that's actually a plus, since ammonia gives you fertilizer, and H2S is easy enough to remove). > Colonization or for industrial and other processes that need water. I question the wisdom of colonisation. As to industrial, most industrial processes which are aquatic can be restated in other terms that fit high insolation and UHV conditions, and they will even work much better typically. As for the rest of them, closed-loop processes are our friends. > This is possible, though I would prefer to hedge my bets. Some here Absolutely -- but you will first need to send teleoperated machinery to the Moon, whether you like it, or not. This is no longer time of foolishness in multiple percent of large country GNP (I've seen the budget allocation trend for the US today renderend in nice animated Java (by way of http://my.reddit.com ), and it's depressing). > argued against sending a probe to Pluto because, by 2015, better, faster > craft would beat it there. Well, 2015 hasn't arrived yet, but what if It takes some 15 years to plan a mission, and if you never start with it, you will never launch one. Same thing with planning Beowulf clusters -- waiting is always the best option, unless you have a deadline. What is Pluto worth us? If I look at the above mentioned budget allocation trend, I could cry you a river. > 2015 looks a lot like 2007 -- save for higher storage hard drives, a few > more genomes being mapped, and nanotube TVs? Some things get worse, actually, such as launch costs (prior to Shuttle), how many tons a single-package to LEO costs, and whether it can include a nuclear reactor. Propulsion options are really limited in deep space, and chemical propulsion translates in huge payloads we nowadays are unwilling/ unable to launch. -- 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 Jan 26 22:33:27 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:33:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings, not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> Reading more background in this surprising history, I find a NYT report from a little over 2 years back: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/science/02fusion.html Evidence on Cold Fusion Remains Inconclusive, New Review Finds By KENNETH CHANG Published: December 2, 2004 In a new review of cold fusion - the claim that energy can be generated by running electrical current through water - the Department of Energy released a report yesterday that says the evidence remains inconclusive, echoing a similar report 15 years ago. Over the past several months, 18 scientists reviewed research in cold fusion, and two-thirds of them did not find the evidence for nuclear reactions in the experiments convincing. Almost all of them, however, said that aspects of cold fusion merited consideration for further research. "I think the new review has shed some light on the status of research that has been done over the last 15 years," said Dr. James F. Decker, deputy director of the science office in the Energy Department who agreed to the review at the request of several scientists involved with cold fusion research. Dr. Decker said the department was open to proposals for cold fusion research, but added that was not new. "We have always been open to proposals that have scientific merit as determined by peer review," he said. "We have never closed the door to cold fusion proposals." ... Other scientists, however, had trouble reproducing the findings, and at the end of 1989, a review by the Energy Department recommended against a specific cold fusion research program, although it did support further investigation into some aspects. After that, most scientists regarded cold fusion as a discredited farce, but a small group of scientists continued work in the field. Measurements have become better, but cold fusion experiments still produce heat at best half of the time. At the end of last year, several cold fusion scientists approached Dr. Decker, asking for a review. Dr. Decker agreed. In the review, nine scientists chosen by the Energy Department considered a paper submitted by the cold fusion scientists. Another nine listened to oral presentations by cold fusion scientists in August. "This was a very, very scientific, very level-headed, review by everybody," said Dr. Kirby W. Kemper, vice president for research at Florida State University and one of the reviewers of the oral presentations. But Dr. Kemper said, "I don't think we've made much progress since '89 in really nailing down the parameters that make it reproducible." He said there were interesting scientific questions on the behavior of hydrogen within metals that merited research, and he said his comments tried to offer a future research path. Dr. Michael McKubre, a scientist at SRI International, one of the scientists who approached Dr. Decker last year, said the conclusions were at least "mildly positive" in endorsing consideration of further research. "All we set out to demonstrate was there were serious issues of science that had to be developed further," Dr. McKubre said. "If you look through the materials, the majority, if not the entirety, agree on that point." ================== This is a long way from John's "BULLSHIT!" It's worth noting that MIT's Peter Hagelstein (who seems to have been treated very shabbily as a result of his continued interest in CF research) was the breakthrough designer of Xasers. Not really your high school teacher. Damien Broderick From benboc at lineone.net Fri Jan 26 22:20:25 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:20:25 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45BA7EA9.5010300@lineone.net> Anders wrote: >I wonder if odors could be used in ambient information visualisation >(odification?). Imagine having the relative development of your stocks >waft through the ventilation as a discreet odor mix. I had to read that twice, thought you were talking about socks, not stocks. Which would make more sense to me! Someone with synaesthetic tendencies like yourself could maybe make sense of data presented as smells, but i'm pretty sure i wouldn't. I don't even get pictures in my head when listening to music, as i understand a lot of people do. And i'm not sure why, if smells have visual equivalents, you wouldn't just use the visual data in the first place? Probably much easier to encode digitally, for one thing, as well as more accessible to people. Is sandalwood higher or lower than acetone? :) ben zaiboc From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 22:57:29 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:57:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <45BA7EA9.5010300@lineone.net> References: <45BA7EA9.5010300@lineone.net> Message-ID: I am confused. I agree with statements that the visual sense tends to be the highest bandwidth (most bits/s). But there are only 3 receptors -- everything else is subjective interpretation (as color blind or color variant people are able to discuss). On the other hand sound and smell would seem to offer much more refined senses. In sound I believe that the location of the perception is allowing different frequency differentiation while in smell one is dealing with different types of receptors, their quantity, location, etc. I would tend to relate sound to overall "touch" sensation. Its "where" the stimulation is perceived that counts. But in terms of overall variety, in humans, it has to be sight < taste < hearing < smell < touch. Touch wins out on the basis of larger surface area and mutiple sensors (heat, pain, pressure, etc.). Now, whether ones brain is able to percieve the subtlties of these differences may depend on ones exposure when one was young and whether there was an incentive to develop those perceptual abilities. (Unused neural components tend to atrophy.) Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 27 01:18:01 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:18:01 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <45BA7EA9.5010300@lineone.net> Message-ID: <200701270128.l0R1SLEU011347@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben ... > > Someone with synaesthetic tendencies like yourself could maybe make > sense of data presented as smells... Probably much easier to encode digitally... ben zaiboc Data via smell. Extremely low bandwidth I would think. I have a colleague who was born with nasal passages in such a configuration that he had no sense of smell, and very little sense of taste. He was a busy engineer with his own company, so he never took the time to get it surgically repaired. After retirement at age 60 he decided to have it fixed. Having never had the sense of smell he had no memories or associations attached to any odors. What do you suppose happened? My guess was wrong, for I would have speculated that he would suddenly like eating much more and so would gain weight. Altho he was able to taste food for the first time, his eating habits did not change much. He commented that much to his surprise, most smells were unpleasant to him and he almost regretted opting for the surgery. Oops, that wasn't supposed to happen. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 05:25:25 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:25:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <614706.14192.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701262125u4559c53dkfdcd778c0f60de6e@mail.gmail.com> Since there has been some interest in this thread, I'm reposting my off-list reply to Anna - I'd like to hear what people think about my theory about the tradeoff between perception and environmental modelling (vision) vs the direct sampling of chemistry (scent) or how sound provides an always-on backup when vision fails at night. Thoughts? On 1/19/07, Anna Taylor wrote: > What do you think is your most keen sense? > > Do you have a keen sense of taste, can you remember > smell very well, can you hear or have a better ear? > If you believe you have more than one keen sense, > please specify in order. > > (Examples and stories are always welcome) Either hearing or sight. If forced to choose I would answer hearing because I believe sight to be more a function of perception software rather than hardware. While I doubt my visual hardware is significantly better than anyone else with 20/20 visual acuity, I seem to "see" more details. Others may be able to read street signs at 2 blocks, but few of them would also notice the status of the traffic lights at the same time. I think the internal mechanisms for processing a video stream is very different from the quality of hardware that generates that stream. Hearing may be similar, but I am not as aware of the process as much. It seems to me that the hardware and software for detecting/processing this information are more closely integrated and it's less clear where a line could be drawn. I have been called "dog ears" because I notice when line printers run out of paper even though they're two rooms away - or must hunt down the source of normally inaudible sounds to disable their incessant noise (coworker's monitor hum from the opposite side of a cube farm) I have a friend who was describing his martial arts training and it seemed to me that the always-on nature of his training would also heighten his senses. I would be interesting (if you are putting together a formal survey) to know if there is a link between martial arts training and heightened sense acuity. (i digress) are you interested in explaining how or why our senses have evolved the way they have? ex: during the day, line of sight visual landscape modelling is highly detailed, but fails at night - though hearing is able to provide a (possibly) less detailed, yet more consistent (day & night) description of environmental dangers (or opportunity) Is the olfactory sense more subtle because the hardware and software are even more integrated than hearing? Is it tied more closely to memory because it samples direct chemistry rather than modelling a percpetion of reality? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpicone at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 07:57:40 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:57:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] all quiet on the extrope front In-Reply-To: References: <200701260433.l0Q4XQns003206@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <002D6975-3922-46E8-8444-9CAB2D521AFC@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: On 1/26/07, BillK wrote: > > > In the increasingly rare occasions when command line usage is required > to fix a Linux problem you can usually find a Linux geek in a > subterranean dungeon somewhere. You just have to use jelly babies and > coffee to lure him out, blinking in the unaccustomed daylight, to fix > it with a few magical commands. (You also have to put up with being > told at length how big an idiot you are, but that's a small price to > pay). :) And there we go underplaying the importance of the internet again, now you can reach the mind of a Linux geek in their dungeon from the convenience of your own home... Of course technicly I suppose you could since before the first kernel release, but that detail hardly matters. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 23 03:32:50 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:32:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses Message-ID: <242473.71634.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On Fri Jan 19 08:31:49 UTC 2007 Damien Broderick wrote: Anna Taylor femmechakra at yahoo.ca wrote: >What do you think is your most keen sense? Kinesthesia. My apology, I meant, what is your most natural keen sense? Anna Anna Taylor femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 19 05:37:58 UTC 2007: I am doing a questionnaire on Senses and was looking for some help regarding this matter. What do you think is your most keen sense? Do you have a keen sense of taste, can you remember smell very well, can you hear or have a better ear? If you believe you have more than one keen sense, please specify in order. (Examples and stories are always welcome) If you want to contact me offlist it would be much appreciated and if anybody is interested in the results please feel free to let me know. If anybody is willing to ask it on their blog and get back to me with the results and/or just leave my e-mail where they can respond, it would be fabulous. Thanks Anna:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 23:35:43 2007 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:35:43 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Education in 2030 In-Reply-To: <898853.70077.qm@web32815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070110230856.20496.qmail@web51614.mail.yahoo.com> People care about their children yet send them to substandard schools. This is cognitive dissonance on the part of the parents, teachers, teachers unions-- and we can safely assume, though through no fault on their part, the students. No complaints concerning colleges & universities, and K-12 aren't as bad as the reputation would have you believe, or how could so many children read comic books and whatnot? But when you factor in the hundreds of billions spent on K-12; and how the students pick on each other, the situation ought to be improved. After all if you are going to spend hundreds of billions on education and have the children stomp on each other why not let them be schooled at home where they can fight with their siblings? Jose Cordeiro wrote: Dear futurist friends, Just in time for a new year, I want to invite you all to fill out a fascinating survey about the future of education. If you find some transhumanist overtones in some questions, don't ask me who helped:-) Have a very happy 2007, 2070, 2700, 7200... Futuristically yours, La vie est belle! Jos? Cordeiro (www.cordeiro.org) Director, Venezuela, The Millennium Project (www.StateOfTheFuture.org) ============================================ From: Jerome Clayton Glenn Subject: Invitation to participate in Education and Learning Possibilities in 2030 On behalf of the Millennium Project of the American Council for the United Nations University, we have the honor to invite you to participate in a study on Education and Learning Possibilities by the Year 2030. The purpose of this study is to provide a global picture of potential futures of education and learning that will be used as an input to the new Vision of Korea for 2030 report to the Ministry of Education. Our study will address education in a global sense, not specific Korean issues as such. Applications from this global study will be focused on Korea by a different team assembled by the Korean Node of the Millennium Project. The results of the global assessment will be published in the next State of the Future. You are invited to take part in this process by providing your judgments in the on line questionnaire at www.realtimedelphi.com. No attributions will be made, but respondents will be listed as participants. You do not have to complete this online questionnaire in one visit. When you return to the questionnaire, it will contain your previous answers and the inputs provided by others. You can change your previous textual and numeric answers as often as you like. You are encouraged to return to this questionnaire several times before the deadline of January 17, 2007. When you access www.realtimedelphi.com you will be asked if this is your first visit, and if so, you are requested to register (enter your e-mail address and postal address to which we should mail the results). When you return to the questionnaire, select: If you have registered before for any study on this site, please click here to proceed, and then provide just your email address (which is always your login key) and then proceed to the questionnaire. When asked to enter the access code, enter "edu.? Please contact us if you have any questions or need clarification about this invitation. We look forward to including your views, and to sharing the results with you. Best regards, Jerome C. Glenn, Theodore J. Gordon Director, Senior Fellow The Millennium Project www.StateOfTheFuture.org _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 00:14:52 2007 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:14:52 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] education in 2030 Message-ID: <20070110234805.88323.qmail@web51606.mail.yahoo.com> Don't wish to exaggerate the mediocrity of schools, it goes without saying many good schools, good teachers, school administrators, teachers' unions do exist. However not enough for the price. And, again, the students don't generally treat each other well. So the situation is at best fair. Scale of 1-10 would give it a 5. Too much blame is directed at teachers' unions, though they are indeed culpable. Parents should be more aware of schools but couples with more than one child are too harried to be held accountable; while teachers, their unions; administrators are directly accountable. Sorry, believe it or not I don't enjoy being dissident, but it doesn't appear at this time (I'm conservative in the sense of going by the perceptions of today, not decades from today) that 2030 will be a time we know decent education, not in a large 'pluralistic' (read: contentious) nation such as America. One obvious reason schools aren't better is the fear that flunking out too many minority students will decrease social cohesion, a not invalid fear. At this time it seems optimism for the educational year 2030 is baseless. --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kerry_prez at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 20:06:09 2007 From: kerry_prez at yahoo.com (Al Brooks) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:06:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] education in 2030 Message-ID: <20070112200609.85082.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> [moderator, please post] Going by perceptions of 2007, and not conceivabilities of 2030, what is likely? If parents have a determination (and who can really blame them?) to use schools as babysitting services; if the K-12 system is as self-perpetuating as it appears it can be retained well past 2030 into the second half of the century. Matter of iron determination on the part of school system advocates-- and since the system is a monopoly you have to subsidize it even if you opt out. Sorry but I know of no evidence to justify optimism for 2030. However after 2050 the situation looks better. --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 15:26:55 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:26:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] education in 2030 In-Reply-To: <20070112200609.85082.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070112200609.85082.qmail@web51608.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701270726r15e18976r44453ce54b4408fb@mail.gmail.com> On 1/12/07, Al Brooks wrote: > > > Sorry but I know of no evidence to justify optimism for 2030. However > after 2050 the situation looks better. > for every reason you just posted, why would 2050 be better than 2030? Because another generation of the products of the current (or near future) system will suddenly want better for their own children? The indoctrination system we call education prepares young minds to be the kind of consumers that drive the status quo around stasis. Those few who see it for what it is usually rise into positions of power and comfort where they can maintain that power and comfort by keeping things as they are. Change implies risk. Those capable of introducing change have the most to lose. Is there enough extropian influence to overcome this inertia? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jan 27 15:33:47 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:33:47 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <45BA7EA9.5010300@lineone.net> References: <45BA7EA9.5010300@lineone.net> Message-ID: <1658.86.144.174.118.1169912027.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> ben wrote: > Anders wrote: > > >I wonder if odors could be used in ambient information visualisation > >(odification?). Imagine having the relative development of your stocks > >waft through the ventilation as a discreet odor mix. > > I had to read that twice, thought you were talking about socks, not > stocks. > Which would make more sense to me! Hmm, maybe one could have clothing that actually provided olfactorisations of data. Right now there is a natural data in the form of the smell of bacterial flora interacting with past body states, which is certainly a complex olfactorisation but hardly anything most people care about (one day I'm going to get myself some petri dishes and start to identify exactly what species make what smells, just for fun). Given that we both have bactericidal clothing being developed and people are doing visualisation clothing I think one could combine this. > And i'm not sure why, if smells have > visual equivalents, you wouldn't just use the visual data in the first > place? Probably much easier to encode digitally, for one thing, as well > as more accessible to people. A real olfactorisation would not induce a visual image but rather a sense of smell context. Imagine that processor usage is denoted by spicy smells, hard drive usage by earthy smells, memory usage by bakery smells,graphics card usage by flowery smells and detected errors by some more stinking smells. When I start my big mathematical calculation I will get a rough context of an exotic bakery (CPU, memory). After a while the smells start to drift towards the earthy as results start to get written onto the harddrive (maybe a rather rustic bakery). Suddenly I notice a stink: there is a HD fault. Swapping the drive I get back to the sense of bakery, which now appears to move into the garden as the visualisation software starts. If there were a new fault, I might get the sense of a bit of rotten fruit (putrid + flowery). > Is sandalwood higher or lower than acetone? :) Acetone is a very pure, high slightly wavery line. It is one of the few smells I tend to "see" in the left visual field rather than the right. In most cases "high" smells are more volatile than "low" smells. It is very much like taste: first you experience the volatile substances, then the water soluble ones and finally the fat soluble and high molecular weight ones. Robert: > I agree with statements that the visual sense tends to be > the highest bandwidth (most bits/s). But there are only 3 receptors -- > everything else is subjective interpretation (as color blind or color > variant people are able to discuss). On the other hand sound and smell > would seem to offer much more refined senses. In sound I believe that the > location of the perception is allowing different frequency differentiation > while in smell one is dealing with different types of receptors, their > quantity, location, etc. I would tend to relate sound to overall "touch" > sensation. Its "where" the stimulation is perceived that counts. Yes, auditory processing has affordances for very subtle location determination just from sound (humans can do a bit of echolocation). It is pretty amazing that we can sense that sounds come from straight above! There is a pretty impressive system in the parietal lobe meshing visual, auditory and somatosensory signals into a world model so that they appear to come from locations in an allocentric rather than an egocentric coordinate system. Still, location is just one form of data. >But in terms of overall variety, in humans, it has to be sight < taste < >hearing < smell < touch. Touch wins out on the basis of larger surface >area and mutiple sensors (heat, pain, pressure, etc.). But that is just bandwidth. if you look at cortical processing area vision wins out - we do much more with that than with touch. The thing smell can do that no other sense can is to directly interact with the limbic system (OK, there is a side-pathway via the pulvinar in the visual system that goes to the amygdala, relevant to people with phobias). 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. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Jan 27 15:38:42 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:38:42 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <242473.71634.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <242473.71634.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1891.86.144.174.118.1169912322.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Anna Taylor wrote: > On Fri Jan 19 08:31:49 UTC 2007 Damien Broderick: >>What do you think is your most keen sense? > Kinesthesia. > > My apology, I meant, what is your most natural keen > sense? Well, that is a natural sense. Sometimes called proprioception. The sense of where the different body parts are and in what tension muscles and tendons are. It is usually bunched together with touch, but it should properly be regarded as an independent sense (different receptors, slightly separate cortical representation). It is surprising how often people completely fail to notice it. I learned to relax by deliberately learning how different muscles feel when they are tense (I deliberately tensed them) and then how they feel when they relax (I ceased tensing them). After a while it becomes possible to relax deliberately, which is useful, but it only works once you have learned to recognize tension. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From amara at amara.com Sat Jan 27 16:44:29 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:44:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Water Marks the Asthenosphere Message-ID: Technotranscendence (neptune at superlink.net): >Reading this, >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/315/5810/297g Thanks! For me, it gives another data point, together with data/models of other interior regions of the Earth, for the total amount of water stored in the Earth, which is not known. At least not precisely. Numbers from different methods are converging to ~10 ocean masses (1 ocean mass = 1.5E21 kg) or less, of water stored inside of the Earth. That 0.07% by weight in the article is similar to the 0.05% by weight of water stored in ocean island ridge basalts, which are usually thought to come from reservoirs located deep in the mantle. >I'm wondering if a lot of water on other worlds might be >integrated into the mantle or other strata... Did you read the last sentence in the author's paper ? It provides a constraint: "In any case, however, our results imply that the existence of an asthenosphere-and therefore of plate tectonics as we know it-is possible only in a planet with a water-bearing mantle." Mars doesn't have plate tectonics. Neither does the Moon. I'm not sure if one can say that if you don't have plate tectonics that you don't have a water-bearing mantle, but there is some important geophysics in this result (I must go ask a geophysicist!). >Perhaps Mars has lots of water, but it's all part of a mineral matrix >deep below the surface. But how deep? The outer layers didn't change very much in Mars' history. How does one know? The oxygen isotope information in the Martian meteorites, which span large time periods, all have similar numbers, which means that the Martian lithosphere became well homogenized early in its history. See: McKeegan, Kevin D. and Leshin, Laurie A., (2001), Stable Isotope Variations in Extraterrestrial Materials, {Rev. Mineral Geochem}, 43, 279. ==================================================================== The Origin of Water on Mars Amara L. Graps,a,f Jonathan I. Lunine,b, John Chambers,c Alessandro Morbidelli,d and Laurie A. Leshin, e, David P. O'Brien,f a INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario, Rome, Italy b Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA c DTM, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA d Observatoire de la C?te d'Azur, BP 4229, F-06304 Nice cedex 4, France e Department of Geological Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA f Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona, USA 85719 Abstract Here we consider the origin of water on Mars, in the context of a dynamical model that accounts for most of the Earth's water as a product of collisions between the growing Earth and planet-sized "embryos" from the asteroid belt. Mars' history is found to be different; to explain the present mass of Mars, its core formation times (Hf-W), and the broad age range and homogeneity of SNCs (O isotopes), it requires that it suffer essentially no giant collisions, was homogenized early in its history, and the bulk of its growth was through the addition of smaller bodies. Essentially Mars is itself an embryo. Nitrogen isotope ratios, the Fe-O magma content, and new dynamical simulations together suggest that parent bodies from the inner asteroid belt could have provided Mars' interior component as well as providing some part of Mars' water. This water can be supplemented with small bodies beyond 2.5~A.U. and cometary material. The percentage of each contribution, along with the material's D/H ratio will be given in the presentation. ==================================================================== (To be presented April 2007 at the AGU, Vienna. ) This work was previously published in the journal Icarus in 2003 by Lunine et al. This April, I will give updates on their 2003 results. Mostly I'm representing Lunine and Morbidelli for Mars, while we work on the same topic for Earth. >What about Luna? It's too dry, from its origin. Sample returns from the Apollo missions showed that the Moon had an "anorthositic crust", which indicates a very hot magma ocean beginning. Here I quote from Lunine (2006), because the words are concise: -------------------------- Lunine, J. "Physical Conditions on the Early Earth" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2006) 361, 1721-1731. {begin quote} The origin of the Earth's Moon lies in one giant collision, and one with very specific properties initially constrained by geochemistry (Hartmann and Davis, 1975) and later by detailed dynamical simulations (Benz et al., 1986; Canup, 2004). The Moon-forming impact occurred toward the middle to late time in the growth of the Earth, principally based not only on isotopic data (Halliday et al., 2004a), but also on the need for the Earth to have been well-differentiated at the time of the collision. The event involved a colliding body the mass of Mars or a few tens of per cent larger, coming in obliquely so as to produce material that would collide with the Earth a second time so that significant material would remain in orbit around the Earth, rather than ejected into solar orbit (Canup, 2004). {end quote} Benz, W., Slattery, W.L. and Cameron, A.G.W. (1986). "The origin of the Moon and the single impact hypothesis I", Icarus 66, 515-535. Canup, R.M. (2004), "Simulation of a Late Lunar-Forming Impact", Icarus 168, 433-456. Halliday, A.N. 2004a, "The origin and earliest history of the Earth", pp. 509-557. In: Meteorites, Comets and Planets (ed. A.M. Davis) Vol. 1 Treatise on Geochemistry (eds. H.D. Holland and K.K. Turekian), Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford. Hartmann, W.K. and Davis, D.R. (1975). "Satellite-sized planetesimals and lunar origin", Icarus 24, 504-515. -------------------------- The Giant Impact model explains some important observational points. It explains why the Moon has a lower density -- because the outer part of the Earth would have lower density material since it already differentiated, with iron already being formed in its (Earth's) core. It explains why so much of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system is in the Moon's rotation. It also explains why the Moon is is 'bone dry' -- because much of the material that shot into orbit was vaporized, with only the least volatile material remaining and condensing into solids. There is an observational 'sticking point' for the Giant Impact hypothesis. The oxygen isotopes from the Earth and the Moon are _identical_. About 80% of the Moon-forming material is estimated from theoretical work to originate from the Mars-sized impactor. Because of the stochastic collisions between embryos born in different parts of the inner solar system, one needs a consistent explanation for the oxygen isotope similarities between the Moon and Earth. The answer might be this: Pahlevan K., and Stevenson D. J. (2005) "The Oxygen Isotope Similarity of the Earth and Moon: Source Region or Formation Process?", Lunar Planet. Sci., XXXVI, #2382 .. which says that an oxygen isotopic exchange occurred between the Earth's mantle and the circumterrestrial vapor-melt silicate disk that produced the Moon. In other words, that material that formed the Earth's mantle and the Moon was very hot and mixed. Hope that this was useful. 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 hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Jan 27 17:37:56 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:37:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Water Marks the Asthenosphere In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070127121543.03a3d980@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:44 PM 1/27/2007 +0100, Amara wrote: snip >The Giant Impact model explains some important observational points. It >explains why the Moon has a lower density -- because the outer part of >the Earth would have lower density material since it already >differentiated, with iron already being formed in its (Earth's) core. > >It explains why so much of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system >is in the Moon's rotation. Orbit? >It also explains why the Moon is is 'bone dry' -- because much of the >material that shot into orbit was vaporized, with only the least >volatile material remaining and condensing into solids. > >There is an observational 'sticking point' for the Giant Impact >hypothesis. The oxygen isotopes from the Earth and the Moon are >_identical_. About 80% of the Moon-forming material is estimated from >theoretical work to originate from the Mars-sized impactor. Because of >the stochastic collisions between embryos born in different parts of the >inner solar system, one needs a consistent explanation for the oxygen >isotope similarities between the Moon and Earth. The answer might be >this: >Pahlevan K., and Stevenson D. J. (2005) "The Oxygen Isotope Similarity >of the Earth and Moon: Source Region or Formation Process?", Lunar >Planet. Sci., XXXVI, #2382 > >.. which says that an oxygen isotopic exchange occurred between the >Earth's mantle and the circumterrestrial vapor-melt silicate disk that >produced the Moon. In other words, that material that formed the Earth's >mantle and the Moon was very hot and mixed. If the two bodies had the same oxygen ratio before they hit, they must have formed at the same distance from the sun. "One hypothesis posits that Theia formed at a Lagrangian point relative to Earth, that is, in about the same orbit and about 60? ahead or behind.[1] When the protoplanet Theia had grown to about the size of Mars, its size made it too heavy for its status (comparable to the Trojan asteroids in the orbit of Jupiter) to be stable. As a result, its angular distance from Earth varied more and more until it finally hit the molten world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis Man, that would have been a sight to behold! Keith From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 27 19:02:19 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:02:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] intellectual property again Message-ID: <200701271902.l0RJ2OR0011136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> A fellow rider of a certain obscure antique motorcycle took the out of print shop repair manual, the owners manual, a few magazine articles from the mid 80s, the recall notices, some original advertisements and sales brochures, scanned them all (a few hundred valuable pages) added some text he generated and some from our online group, put it all on a CD in the form of PDFs. He has been selling the CD for 22 bucks for the last several years. Suzuki doesn't mind a bit, since it is generating good will and parts sales as well as providing rolling advertisement, the magazines that carried the articles and ads over 20 years ago haven't complained, the bike owners are ecstatic, and the guy who sells the CD is making a little money off the deal, but not getting rich or anything, since there are only about 1000 of these bikes still in service world wide. Everyone wins. Last week someone bought one of his CDs, made copies and is selling them on eBay for fifteen bucks. This is an interesting sitch: the guy who compiled the CD is crying foul, since he did the work (~80 to 100 hrs) of collecting, arranging and scanning everything, as well as adding some original material. But ~99% of the material he scanned was copyrighted. The copyright holders are either silent or are blessing his efforts. But he still scanned and sold copyrighted material. So now some other yahoo stole his stolen material and is underselling him. He contacted the online club asking us to pressure the reprehensible pirate to remove the material from eBay forthwith, or to complain to eBay that someone is selling copyrighted material. IP gurus, what do we do now? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jan 27 19:34:41 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:34:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] intellectual property again In-Reply-To: <200701271902.l0RJ2OR0011136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200701271934.l0RJYoM0017446@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Subject: [extropy-chat] intellectual property again ...So now some other yahoo stole his stolen material and is underselling him. He contacted the online club asking us to pressure the reprehensible pirate to remove the material from eBay forthwith, or to complain to eBay that someone is selling copyrighted material. IP gurus, what do we do now? spike Update: the original compiler of the CD has contacted the eBay seller, who has agreed to pull the item from auction and desist immediately. The eBay seller admits he copied the CD but claims that he added some additional material from "other sources" upon which he will not elaborate. Well, those of us who repair, maintain and ride these bikes already know that the only real "other source" is the website of the guy who originally compiled the CD. We suspect the new seller downloaded those pages onto "his" CD. OK then. I have listened to extropians debate intellectual property here for years, and haven't said much myself. I know both sides pretty well: information wants to be free but information providers want to be paid. I don't know how to call this one. Would we call the original CD maker the good bad guy and the new CD seller the bad bad guy? spike From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jan 27 20:04:05 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:04:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] intellectual property again In-Reply-To: <200701271934.l0RJYoM0017446@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701271902.l0RJ2OR0011136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200701271934.l0RJYoM0017446@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070127200405.GA21677@leitl.org> On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:34:41AM -0800, spike wrote: > OK then. I have listened to extropians debate intellectual property here > for years, and haven't said much myself. I know both sides pretty well: > information wants to be free but information providers want to be paid. > > I don't know how to call this one. Would we call the original CD maker the > good bad guy and the new CD seller the bad bad guy? IP protection issue is not clear cut. No protection whatsoever removes the incentive to create, whereas overstringent IP protection stifles innovation. To titrate the just right amount of IP protection for a society is a hard problem. It seems the old industrialized places have a very stratified IP ecology with way too much protectionism, whereas newly developing places e.g. in Asia have very little protection, which allows them to profit from R&D done elsewhere. Progress has always been associated with frontiers of low IP right enforcement. It seems we better not run out of frontiers. (The global networks are no longer a frontier, because governments and industrial bodies have conspired to kill anonymity and to control who accesses what when). -- 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 randall at randallsquared.com Sat Jan 27 21:40:17 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:40:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] intellectual property again In-Reply-To: <20070127200405.GA21677@leitl.org> References: <200701271902.l0RJ2OR0011136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200701271934.l0RJYoM0017446@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <20070127200405.GA21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Jan 27, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:34:41AM -0800, spike wrote: > >> OK then. I have listened to extropians debate intellectual >> property here >> for years, and haven't said much myself. I know both sides pretty >> well: >> information wants to be free but information providers want to be >> paid. >> >> I don't know how to call this one. Would we call the original CD >> maker the >> good bad guy and the new CD seller the bad bad guy? > > IP protection issue is not clear cut. No protection whatsoever > removes the > incentive to create, This simply isn't the case. Lots of people create incessantly without any compensation, and many others create in return for compensation with the understanding that they'll compete against resellers (I do this, myself, as everything I write is released under the most liberal license possible -- usually public domain). People who lobby for more restrictions rather than entering contractual relationships with buyers merely want a division of benefit from the sale that the buyer wouldn't agree to voluntarily. -- Randall Randall 'Somebody wake up the National Rifle Association. Does the 2nd Amendment say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except on commercial airliners"?' -- Garrison Keillor From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 22:03:43 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:03:43 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] Message-ID: I was struck recently by: "Professors to Ban Students From Citing Wikipedia" [1]. Now the question arises is the information in Wikipedia "bad" or is it simply incompletely edited? How can students cite the "current" literature, much of which may be unavailable (distributed in many cases by monopolistic publishers but paid for by your tax $) at colleges whose libraries lack subscriptions to "everything" [2]? If the Wikipeida articles are the current "state of knowledge" (because people writing them may have access to the best sources), then the question arises as to why Wikipedia citations should be banned? I would note that I believe both MIT and Stanford are moving in the direction of allowing public access to all of their courses. That would mean that you could get an MIT or Stanford education *without* attending MIT or Stanford. So the question that lurks in the back of my mind is whether teachers (professors) are concerned in the long run with one-to-more-than-"many" replacing the classical "one-to-many" models. If I can get the information online from Wikipedia or MIT or Stanford why should one spend hours and hours redistilling something that someone else has already distilled? One can argue that learning to analyze scientific thought processes has value (which is why things in Wikipedia should be accepted on a "preliminary" basis) or that hearing things directly from the professor in a classroom has value, but I can't help but believe there isn't a fair amount of questioning among various educators -- "What if Wikipedia and the staffs of MIT and Stanford can replace us?" In which case one is dealing with efforts to maintain ones "monopoly" on education rather than legitimate academic concerns. Robert 1. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1752250 2. I am fortunate that over the last 15 years I have had access to libraries that have access to nearly everything. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Sat Jan 27 22:12:30 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:12:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> The issue with Wikipedia is that random people can edit it and insert incorrect information. The incidence of this is low but not zero, and I bet the error rate in Wikipedia is higher than in conventional encyclopedias. If I were a professor these days, I would allow students to cite Wikipedia as a general principle, but ask them to cite more reliable sources for highly critical pices of information... -- Ben On Jan 27, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I was struck recently by: > > "Professors to Ban Students From Citing Wikipedia" [1]. > > Now the question arises is the information in Wikipedia "bad" or is > it simply incompletely edited? How can students cite the "current" > literature, much of which may be unavailable (distributed in many > cases by monopolistic publishers but paid for by your tax $) at > colleges whose libraries lack subscriptions to "everything" [2]? > > If the Wikipeida articles are the current "state of > knowledge" (because people writing them may have access to the best > sources), then the question arises as to why Wikipedia citations > should be banned? I would note that I believe both MIT and > Stanford are moving in the direction of allowing public access to > all of their courses. That would mean that you could get an MIT or > Stanford education *without* attending MIT or Stanford. So the > question that lurks in the back of my mind is whether teachers > (professors) are concerned in the long run with one-to-more- > than-"many" replacing the classical "one-to-many" models. If I can > get the information online from Wikipedia or MIT or Stanford why > should one spend hours and hours redistilling something that > someone else has already distilled? One can argue that learning to > analyze scientific thought processes has value (which is why things > in Wikipedia should be accepted on a "preliminary" basis) or that > hearing things directly from the professor in a classroom has > value, but I can't help but believe there isn't a fair amount of > questioning among various educators -- "What if Wikipedia and the > staffs of MIT and Stanford can replace us?" In which case one is > dealing with efforts to maintain ones "monopoly" on education > rather than legitimate academic concerns. > > Robert > > 1. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1752250 > 2. I am fortunate that over the last 15 years I have had access to > libraries that have access to nearly everything. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pj at pj-manney.com Sat Jan 27 22:24:26 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:24:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses Message-ID: <19185502.220201169936666561.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >Anna Taylor wrote: >> On Fri Jan 19 08:31:49 UTC 2007 Damien Broderick: >>>What do you think is your most keen sense? >> Kinesthesia. I sent Anna an offline reply a few days ago, agreeing with Damien. It's my keenest sense, too. Anna wrote: >> My apology, I meant, what is your most natural keen >> sense? Anna, I don't understand what this correction in your question means. Anders wrote: >Well, that is a natural sense. Sometimes called proprioception. The sense >of where the different body parts are and in what tension muscles and >tendons are. It is usually bunched together with touch, but it should >properly be regarded as an independent sense (different receptors, >slightly separate cortical representation). For me, Kinesthesia is what Anders wrote, but more. It has never felt at all like 'touch' to me. From a functional standpoint, it has a completely different objective than touch. It's an exploration and perception of inner space. Not outer space. And it's not just about muscular control, but the ability to monitor the entire body - muscular, skeletal, organs, the whole enchilada, in detail. Below is an edited version of what I sent Anna offline: I'd have to agree [with Damien]. Me, too. I'm a former dancer. Do yoga... Come from a long line of athletes, but I hated sports. (My grandmother was an all-around sportswoman and one of the first women to do Judo in America -- there's old newsreel footage of her somewhere wrestling with another woman. Grandfather played pro-baseball. Mom went to college on sports scholarship. Her idol, who she was lucky enough to know, was Babe Didrikson Zaharias -- wiki her. I'll bet Kinesthesia was her keenest sense, too.) But it's way beyond the ability to control my body. I know my body and what it does and doesn't do, inside and out, intimately. It fascinates my doctors, because I'm always right, whether it's because they think I've got something I know I don't or visa versa (I guess that's unusual). My son has the same genetic component, but my daughter doesn't and it pisses her off. He has minute muscle control and can turn it on and off and he's only 10. He also does martial arts. [snip - discussed other senses] Smell is only adequate. I shattered my face as a teen and had my nose and sinuses rebuilt twice. It's never been the same. It also affected my singing [badly]... :-( To this, Anna, I want to add a comment in reference to Spike's friend, the man who had no sense of smell, but got it back in his 60's. I had very little sense of smell from the age of 20, which was 5 years after my first operation, when my nasal passages were collapsing, to age 35, when I had my second surgery, opening them up again. And what a difference it made. I obviously remembered what things smelled like, so the good and bad smells remained in the same catagories. The world now is so much richer with an adequate, but not stellar, sense of smell. I'm not synethesiac, but the only word I can think of is that smell brings... "color"... to my world. My initial reactions to people are subtly different, too. Hard to explain, but the added bandwidth helps with accurate impressions. I once compared it to feeling like a dog, when they take an immediate like or dislike to someone. Which brings back a funny memory: The only time my sense of smell worked between 20 & 35 was when I was pregnant. And then I really did feel like a dog! I could smell everything, although how it so abruptly turned on and off, given the structural issues, was anyone's guess. I could track scents, avoided lots of scents because they made me nauseous, and if a piece of cooked meat was anywhere near me, I felt like I could levitate and float on the scent traces in the air, like a Bugs Bunny cartoon. PJ From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Jan 27 23:22:46 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 23:22:46 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] In-Reply-To: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> References: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> Message-ID: On 1/27/07, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > The issue with Wikipedia is that random people can edit it and insert > incorrect information. The incidence of this is low but not zero, and I bet > the error rate in Wikipedia is higher than in conventional encyclopedias. Granted. But this is a problem in education as well -- how to determine the validity of the "sources". Anyone aware of the "scandal" where Wikipedia had to "ban" the congressional IP addresses (because staffers were continually editing in favor of "their" representative and against those opposed to them knows this. So the solution in this case is to have students determine whether a topic might have an editor agenda bias (*and* understand or even elucidate these biases). This is a classical case of "reputation analysis". I trust the reputations of Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle and Robert Freitas because I have read nearly everything each of them has written and have yet to find significant flaws. While I would agree that the Wikipedia error rate might be higher than conventional encyclopedias in our current world there is *no* "up-to-date" "encyclopedia" -- nor will there be so long as encyclopedias are not "free". There are several billion people, some of whom might be the next E.D., R.M. or R.F. who do not have access to "subscription" based encyclopedias who do have access to Wikipedia. R. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jan 27 23:48:01 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:48:01 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> I'm far too shy and discreet to mention that K-MACHINES, the second book in my Tegmark-ish Singularity diptych begun with GODPLAYERS, has just been awarded the 2007 Aurealis Award for best Australian science fiction novel of 2006. Damien Broderick From mmbutler at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 00:07:33 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:07:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings, not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890701271607y11c1779ey158a70f3cf23df92@mail.gmail.com> On 1/26/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > This is a long way from John's "BULLSHIT!" It's worth noting that > MIT's Peter Hagelstein (who seems to have been treated very shabbily > as a result of his continued interest in CF research) was the > breakthrough designer of Xasers. Not really your high school teacher. > > Damien Broderick Jumping in: MY problem is with the NAME "cold FUSION", Damien. To set my own viewpoint, I prefer to use phrases like "probably junk science" rather than "certainly bullsh*t". [In passing: the rhetoric surrounding this matter probably totals more heat than all the experiments so far performed. 1/2 :)] My car's engine gets hot when it runs. Though this is in the long run due to energy release involving some elements that were formed in one or more supernovae, it is infelicitous (arguably, nearly bullsh*t) to call my car's engine a fusion motor. I assume you've read a transcript of Langmuir's classic "pathological science" talk, yes? -- 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 fauxever at sprynet.com Sat Jan 27 23:57:59 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:57:59 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c7426e$f9b82860$6401a8c0@brainiac> Wah hoo wah!!! Nobody deserves this better ... you are the man, in every sense. Olga ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement > I'm far too shy and discreet to mention that K-MACHINES, the second > book in my Tegmark-ish Singularity diptych begun with GODPLAYERS, has > just been awarded the 2007 Aurealis Award for best Australian science > fiction novel of 2006. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 28 00:22:17 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:22:17 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings, not In-Reply-To: <7d79ed890701271607y11c1779ey158a70f3cf23df92@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <7d79ed890701271607y11c1779ey158a70f3cf23df92@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127181601.024e2b48@satx.rr.com> At 04:07 PM 1/27/2007 -0800, Michael M. Butler wrote: >MY problem is with the NAME "cold FUSION" Agreed. >I assume you've read a transcript of Langmuir's classic "pathological >science" talk, yes? Of course, and Beaudette's excellent book discusses crisply why it's *not* applicable to the non-lunatic explorers of this field of electrochemical research. (Of course an excrescence of extremely odd opinions quickly attached itself to P&F's claims and experiments, but they can't be blamed for that.) Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 00:29:50 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:29:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] In-Reply-To: References: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> Message-ID: On 1/27/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > While I would agree that the Wikipedia error rate might be higher than > conventional encyclopedias in our current world there is *no* "up-to-date" > "encyclopedia" -- nor will there be so long as encyclopedias are not "free". > There are several billion people, some of whom might be the next E.D., R.M. > or R.F. who do not have access to "subscription" based encyclopedias who do > have access to Wikipedia. > I think you might be misunderstanding / overreacting in this case. The faculty members are not instructing their students not to use Wikipedia. They are just insisting that citations must refer to the original research papers. That's why you keep seeing 'cite required' in Wikipedia pages. The Wikipedia editors themselves agree that especially at university level, papers should cite an original source, not an encyclopaedia, - *any* encyclopaedia. See: Quote from the article: Roy Rosenzweig, director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, did an analysis of the accuracy of Wikipedia for The Journal of American History, and he found that in many entries, Wikipedia was as accurate or more accurate than more traditional encyclopaedias. He said that the quality of material was inconsistent, and that biographical entries were generally well done, while more thematic entries were much less so. Like Ordonez, he said the real problem is one of college students using encyclopaedias when they should be using more advanced sources. "College students shouldn't be citing encyclopaedias in their papers," he said. "That's not what college is about. They either should be using primary sources or serious secondary sources." ---------- BillK From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 28 00:40:02 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:40:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200701280040.l0S0e7qt013918@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement > > ... Award for best Australian science fiction novel of 2006. > > Damien Broderick Woohoo! Good on ya mate! {8-] > ...I'm far too shy and discreet to mention... Is it not written in the book of Hezekiah chapter 4 verse 7: "If a man hath a horn yet bloweth not his own horn, wherewithal shall it be blown?" > ...just been awarded the 2007 Aurealis Award... We are proud to have you as our friend bud. I tell 'em I know you personally, but they do not believe. {8^D So I show em page 87 of The Spike. {8-] spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 00:56:46 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:56:46 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <200701280040.l0S0e7qt013918@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <200701280040.l0S0e7qt013918@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127185529.022ea308@satx.rr.com> At 04:40 PM 1/27/2007 -0800, spike wrote: >We are proud to have you as our friend bud. awwwww > I tell 'em I know you >personally, but they do not believe. {8^D > >So I show em page 87 of The Spike. *Then* they believe it's named after you! From jef at jefallbright.net Sun Jan 28 01:01:23 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:01:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damien wrote: > I'm far too shy and discreet to mention that K-MACHINES, the second > book in my Tegmark-ish Singularity diptych begun with GODPLAYERS, > has just been awarded the 2007 Aurealis Award for best Australian > science fiction novel of 2006. Congratulations Damien! Looking forward to your next. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 01:12:28 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 19:12:28 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127190719.023c9ce0@satx.rr.com> At 05:01 PM 1/27/2007 -0800, Jef wrote: >Looking forward to your next. Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's a popsci investigation of alleged psi phenomena and those who've studied it seriously over the last 70 or so years, especially my pal Dr. Edwin May who ran the research contract side of the long-classified govt psi program popularly known as Stargate, and his best subject, Joseph McMoneagle. But wait, there's more, much more. OUTSIDE THE GATES OF SCIENCE is the title. Should be released end of May, or a bit later. (Yes, I know, precognition should leave me in no doubt...) Damien Broderick From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Jan 28 02:19:41 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:19:41 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] In-Reply-To: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> References: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <56775.86.140.226.63.1169950781.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> My esteem for a paper that I am reading tends to drop if I find that it cites Wikipedia, Encyclopedia britannica or any other encyclopedia. They are great information sources but not the primary information, quite often not even the secondary. Citing them shows that the author is very new to the field. The same goes to a lesser degree when I see cites of textbooks; that screams "I'm not really an expert, but..." - not necessarily a sign of a bad paper, but a sign that the author is trying to bridge their main area with some area they know less well. A lot of the citation rules are unwritten, local to different fields, biased and only learned through academic imitation. Some are good, some are silly, and some hurt independent thinking. As I often joke, in medicine you write "The brain [1], is an organ [2] commonly found in the head [3,4] thought to be important in thinking [5-10, but see 11]" - and so on, anything less than three pages of references is too thin. In computer science you have five citations for the whole paper: one to Alan Turing or von Neumann, one to another paper and three to your own previous papers and tech reports describing how earlier versions work. Now I'm going off to bed to read Freita's _Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines_. He is a guy who knows to cite in bulk! Yum yum! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Jan 28 02:25:36 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:25:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reputation was Education monopolies In-Reply-To: References: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070127211747.038053d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:22 PM 1/27/2007 +0000, Robert wrote: snip > This is a classical case of "reputation analysis". I trust the > reputations of Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle and Robert Freitas because I > have read nearly everything each of them has written and have yet to find > significant flaws. I am amused. I don't know about Merkle and Freitas, but _one_ of the reasons Drexler's writing has few flaws is that he had a bunch of editors and fact checkers. (My wife was among them for _Nanosystems_) Of course being humble enough to know you are not perfect and *need* others to look at your work before publication is in itself a darn good reason for high reputation. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 02:21:44 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:21:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127202020.0242be10@satx.rr.com> http://www.youtube.com/v/HCkYfYa8ePI (more evidence that I'm jonesin for a quarrel? I hope not.) From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jan 28 01:27:44 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:27:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127190719.023c9ce0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070127190719.023c9ce0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <35270.72.236.103.142.1169947664.squirrel@main.nc.us> Congratulations, Damien! > > OUTSIDE THE GATES OF SCIENCE is the title. > This sounds fascinating! I look forward to reading it! :) Regards, MB From riel at surriel.com Sun Jan 28 17:33:14 2007 From: riel at surriel.com (Rik van Riel) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:33:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] intellectual property again In-Reply-To: <200701271902.l0RJ2OR0011136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701271902.l0RJ2OR0011136@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <45BCDE5A.5090008@surriel.com> spike wrote: > IP gurus, what do we do now? Ask him for proof that he is indeed the copyright holder on those 1980's Suzuki manuals, articles and brochures. Promise him to shut down the auction once he provides conclusive evidence that he indeed owns the copyright. Chances are he'll never get back to you :) -- Politics is the struggle between those who want to make their country the best in the world, and those who believe it already is. Each group calls the other unpatriotic. From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jan 28 17:26:27 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:26:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070128112500.041dfe00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 05:48 PM 1/27/2007, Damien wrote: >I'm far too shy and discreet to mention that K-MACHINES, the second >book in my Tegmark-ish Singularity diptych begun with GODPLAYERS, has >just been awarded the 2007 Aurealis Award for best Australian science >fiction novel of 2006. CONGRATULATIONS ! 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 pj at pj-manney.com Sun Jan 28 18:15:20 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:15:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement Message-ID: <19674951.170711170008120227.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Damien Broderick wrote: >I'm far too shy and discreet to mention that K-MACHINES, the second >book in my Tegmark-ish Singularity diptych begun with GODPLAYERS, has >just been awarded the 2007 Aurealis Award for best Australian science >fiction novel of 2006. CONGRATULATIONS!!! That's fantabulous! Self-aggrandize away -- you deserve it! PJ From scerir at libero.it Sun Jan 28 18:20:22 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:20:22 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses References: <242473.71634.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1891.86.144.174.118.1169912322.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <008901c74308$f9f5bfa0$bc941f97@archimede> Anders writes: [proprioception] ... I learned to relax by deliberately learning how different muscles feel when they are tense (I deliberately tensed them) and then how they feel when they relax (I ceased tensing them). After a while it becomes possible to relax deliberately, which is useful, but it only works once you have learned to recognize tension. # This is exactly what shooters (ie top pistol shooters) do (should do) before every single shot. They relax every single muscle, starting from the legs, then shoulders, arms, hands, the forefinger on the trigger tongue (and this is very difficult since the same tendon acts on the forefinger and on the middlefinger). After some looong training the entire procedure takes just few seconds. This is the reason why their score can be 600/600 (60 'tens'). s. From jonkc at att.net Sun Jan 28 18:31:34 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:31:34 -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> Message-ID: <003701c7430a$99a30480$77084e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > Published: December 2, 2004 > In a new review of cold fusion - the claim that energy can be > generated by running electrical current through water - the > Department of Energy released a report yesterday that says the > evidence remains inconclusive, echoing a similar report 15 years ago. The evidence for the existence of phlogiston is inconclusive too. The newspaper report you quote was more than 2 years ago, computers have doubled in power in that time; so how have things changed in the cold fusion field in all that time? They haven't advanced one inch, zero nada zilch goose egg! It's still inconclusive. Prediction time: I predict we will be in exactly precisely the same situation 2 years from now, or 17. When something remains inconclusive for that long it's time to move on. And the same could be said of ESP bullshit. John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 28 18:53:25 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:53:25 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <19674951.170711170008120227.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <200701281903.l0SJ3lHw020365@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of pjmanney > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement > > Damien Broderick wrote: > > >I'm far too shy and discreet to mention that K-MACHINES, the second > >book in my Tegmark-ish Singularity diptych begun with GODPLAYERS, has > >just been awarded the 2007 Aurealis Award for best Australian science > >fiction novel of 2006. > > CONGRATULATIONS!!! That's fantabulous! Self-aggrandize away -- you > deserve it! > > PJ When one congratulates oneself, even if perfectly appropriate, the word sometimes used is self-aggrandizement. Since we here at ExI share in the reflected glow of this achievement and it is we who are doing the congratulating, these posts should be called someone-else-aggrandizement. When one is cut down with harsh words, the speaker is said to belittle the receiver of insults. There should be an opposite, which one would suppose would be the clumsy sounding "bebig." Damien I risk bebigging you with this comment: you describe K-machines as your Tegmark-ish Singularity diptych. But since you clearly have contributed new concepts to the singularity notion and written compelling fiction with K and Godplayers, the Tegmark works should be called Broderick-ish. Far too humble are you. After googling, I see that Tegmark also richly deserves being sincerely bebigged. His site is nothing but wicked cool: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/index.html Lotsa cool space stuff in there. {8-] spike From ben at goertzel.org Sun Jan 28 19:14:33 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:14:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <003701c7430a$99a30480$77084e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <003701c7430a$99a30480$77084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7D0E03F6-251B-4A0B-9F23-D47268FBE4F4@goertzel.org> Early on the exponential growth curve of progress in a given area, progress can seem slow... By your argument, AGI should also be abandoned due to lack of prior progress... -- Ben On Jan 28, 2007, at 1:31 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Damien Broderick" > >> Published: December 2, 2004 >> In a new review of cold fusion - the claim that energy can be >> generated by running electrical current through water - the >> Department of Energy released a report yesterday that says the >> evidence remains inconclusive, echoing a similar report 15 years ago. > > The evidence for the existence of phlogiston is inconclusive too. The > newspaper report you quote was more than 2 years ago, computers > have doubled > in power in that time; so how have things changed in the cold > fusion field > in > all that time? They haven't advanced one inch, zero nada zilch > goose egg! > It's > still inconclusive. Prediction time: I predict we will be in exactly > precisely the same situation 2 years from now, or 17. When > something remains > inconclusive for that long it's time to move on. And the same could > be said > of ESP bullshit. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 28 19:43:00 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:43:00 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <200701281903.l0SJ3lHw020365@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200701281954.l0SJsTw6027676@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike ... > > After googling, I see that Tegmark also richly deserves being sincerely > bebigged. His site is nothing but wicked cool: > > http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/index.html > > Lotsa cool space stuff in there. {8-] > > spike After spending some time on Tegmark's site, I ran across the Royal Goof Society: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/index.html This has me wanting to write up my own (lengthy) list of goofs. I love this type of humor. {8-] spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 20:55:07 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:55:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <200701281954.l0SJsTw6027676@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200701281903.l0SJ3lHw020365@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200701281954.l0SJsTw6027676@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 1/28/07, spike wrote: > This has me wanting to write up my own (lengthy) list of goofs. I love > this > type of humor. {8-] spike Would spending $700M on a probe [1] to take a few pictures of a hunk of ice without figuring out how to put the camera and antenna into orbit *around* said hunk of ice (so one would have long term observation capabilities) qualify? [Oh, yea, we can launch it, and we are going to ignore the fact that its a stupid mission because you are writing the checks... And when you figure out how to build a satellite that can put itself into orbit we will be happy to receive a check for another $400M to launch that...] There almost seems to be an unspokein anti-nanotech trend in industry (and perhaps even in research circles) because if nanotech were to be developed quickly it would upset oh-so-many applecarts. The programming error that may have doomed the MGS [2] may top the cake on my list. You really probably don't want to get me started... R. 1. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/01/19/pluto.mission/index.html 2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070111/sc_space/faultysoftwaremayhavedoomedmarsorbiter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 21:08:52 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:08:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reputation was Education monopolies In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070127211747.038053d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070127211747.038053d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 1/27/07, Keith Henson wrote: > I am amused. Happy to provide entertainment, please leave a few $ in the cup by the door as you leave. I don't know about Merkle and Freitas, but _one_ of the reasons Drexler's > writing has few flaws is that he had a bunch of editors and fact > checkers. (My wife was among them for _Nanosystems_) Interesting. I would be curious to know whether the flaws were numerical, logical, or referential. And I agree with your assertion. Being wise enough to have internal review and incorporate worthwhile comments is a productive strategy. I cannot help however being struck by the fact of how accurate Nanosystems was/is given that it was written 15+ years ago. So hats off to the reviewers (however unknown). Of course being humble enough to know you are not perfect and *need* others > to look at your work before publication is in itself a darn good reason > for > high reputation. Agreed. When one is knee deep in a problem (as I currently am with mechanisms of aging) it is useful to have external inputs. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 21:35:30 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:35:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127202020.0242be10@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127202020.0242be10@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Damien, You need to *seriously* be worried about encouraging me to give up on humanity. I understand aging, I understand how to fix it and extend lifespan. I have significant questions about *why* one should bother to do so (propagating stupidity is of questionable value). [1] Posting URLs pointing out how *stupid* or uninformed the average U.S. citizen [2], particularly when they are misled [3], is causes me to debate seriously whether jumping off a bridge or jumping into the SI camp (of letting the damm "FAI" take over) might not be seriously better than the alternate paths. You run the risk of pointing out why the whole extropic effort is doomed. Is that your goal? If you make being "stupid" a low cost path then what one ends up with is more stupidity. Robert 1. I have been having discussions offlist with some about this. What is the point to saving collections of information which are destructive, unproductive, or potentially will ultimately have to be deleted. (There are strategies by which they might be saved but one needs to come up with a good reason for doing so.) 2. Which one would hope the "average U.S. citizen" is better educated than the average human on the planet -- at least they aren't murdering and/or raping and/or eating each other as tends to be the case in Uganda, Sudan and the Congo. 3. The commentator, no matter what his accent is is not the Australian Prime Minister. See [4]. Or is your goal to point out how people in the U.S. will believe any assertion by someone with a camera crew? 4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/images/20060516-1_p051606pm-0312jpg-515h.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 28 21:26:58 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:26:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <200701281903.l0SJ3lHw020365@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <958471.24800.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of pjmanney > > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] blatant self > aggrandizement > > > > Damien Broderick wrote: > > > > >I'm far too shy and discreet to mention that > K-MACHINES, the second > > >book in my Tegmark-ish Singularity diptych begun > with GODPLAYERS, has > > >just been awarded the 2007 Aurealis Award for > best Australian science > > >fiction novel of 2006. > > > > CONGRATULATIONS!!! That's fantabulous! > Self-aggrandize away -- you > > deserve it! > > > > PJ > > > > When one congratulates oneself, even if perfectly > appropriate, the word > sometimes used is self-aggrandizement. Since we > here at ExI share in the > reflected glow of this achievement and it is we who > are doing the > congratulating, these posts should be called > someone-else-aggrandizement. > When one is cut down with harsh words, the speaker > is said to belittle the > receiver of insults. There should be an opposite, > which one would suppose > would be the clumsy sounding "bebig." I believe you mean "embiggen", Spike, as in Damien's work embiggens the rest of us. Thanks, Damien. ;) If you look it up on wikipedia, you will see that "embiggen" is much more "cromulent" for this purpose than "bebig". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culturally_significant_phrases_from_The_Simpsons 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 22:10:27 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:10:27 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127202020.0242be10@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070128155211.02490a80@satx.rr.com> At 04:35 PM 1/28/2007 -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: >You need to *seriously* be worried about encouraging me to give up >on humanity. > >Posting URLs pointing out how *stupid* or uninformed the average >U.S. citizen [2], particularly when they are misled [3], is causes >me to debate seriously whether jumping off a bridge or jumping into >the SI camp (of letting the damm "FAI" take over) might not be >seriously better than the alternate paths. Calm down, pal. While the video is apparently not a spoof--in the sense that these are real vox pop responses--it is of course compiled from *heavily* selected fragments. I guess what's cumulatively hilarious/horrifying for Aussies in such a gag is the (mischievously over-emphasized) degree of ignorance and lack of ironic self-perception among a selection of citizens of the world's richest, most powerful and most influential nation. It might not be truly representative, but it is grimly funny and a bit worrying. One frequently sees surveys claiming that such colossal ignorance is widespread, but a clip like this brings it home with an ouch. But don't jump off a bridge. We do need to find good solutions to these problems--not only to aging etc, but to the cheerfully accepted limitations on ordinary human intelligence and curiosity instilled by cultures like ours (maybe by all cultures, as you point out, of which many are far worse and more vicious). Sorry to have soured your day, Robert. Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Sun Jan 28 22:36:14 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:36:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127202020.0242be10@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127202020.0242be10@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45BD255E.9050503@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/v/HCkYfYa8ePI > > (more evidence that I'm jonesin for a quarrel? I hope not.) Okay... ...maybe I'm just being naive, here... ...refusing to accept reality... ...but I find myself skeptical that some of these people were not being deliberately stupid, in hopes of getting on television. If, indeed, worse deeds of fakery were not committed. Yes, I've met ordinary mortals and been deeply shocked by the things they didn't know - but they still didn't believe that Star Wars is based on a true story. Or maybe I still haven't been looking low enough. It says something that I'm not sure. The FAI camp is waiting patiently for you, Robert Bradbury; and those of us already here made that choice for a reason. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jan 28 22:55:07 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:55:07 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <45BD255E.9050503@pobox.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127202020.0242be10@satx.rr.com> <45BD255E.9050503@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070128164636.021f0c98@satx.rr.com> At 02:36 PM 1/28/2007 -0800, Eliezer wrote: >Yes, I've met ordinary mortals and been deeply shocked by the things >they didn't know - but they still didn't believe that Star Wars is based >on a true story. I viewed this (the guy made a slight hesitation, as I recall) as him *interpreting* the question, perhaps as "Is Star Wars based on a Bible battle? or WW2? or the Vietnam War?" Oh, wait, the Vietnam War, what was that? But I understand that the people really were not actors with a script; as for their conjectured desire to out-goof the Aussie, or grab some screen time, well, maybe. And maybe those 63% Americans who claim a literal belief in the Barbel are jest funnin' yez, too. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43957 Rasmussen Reports found just 24 percent thinking otherwise. When broken down into different demographics, the poll showed 77 percent of Republicans believe in the literal truth of the Bible as do 59 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of those not affiliated with either major party. > For what such surveys are worth... Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 28 23:05:39 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:05:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox (was Randomness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <154003.91043.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > Rafal, this excerpt below goes directly to the > question we were discussing > of whether a sequence of coin-flips should be > considered completely random > even when the coin is heavily weighted. > > As below the conventional answer is yes, because as > I indicated yesterday > the sequence satisfies the axiom or conditions of > randomness. I have been meaning to return to this particular issue because I am completely disattisified with the Axiom of Randomness as so stated. > ==== > Axiom of Randomness: the limiting relative frequency > of each attribute in > a collective C is the same in any infinite > subsequence of C which is > determined by a place selection. The problem lies in that it caters to the frequentist notion that probability of a specific outcome is the limiting relative frequency of that outcome in an infinite sequence of possible outcomes. While this may seem intuitive, it does not hold up mathematically. To illustrate why, I invoke what I call the coin-flip paradox. The question at the heart of the paradox is: what is the distribution of the observed frequencies of heads in n flips of a fair (i.e. unweighted) coin? Now mind you an unweighted coin is the simplest generator of randomness that we know of and since we were school children we learned that the probability of getting heads is 0.5 exactly. The paradox arises when one compares the *known* probability of getting h heads with the relative frequency of heads in a progressively longer sequence of n flips of the coin. To illustrate this, first think of flipping a coin once. The possible outcomes for the *observed* frequency of heads in this stuation is either 1 or 0. It is in fact *impossible* in an odd number of coin flips to achieve an *observed* frequency of 0.5 as the text books would seem suggest. Since half of all possible values n are odd, with no further analysis, one could expect to *observe* a frequency 0.5 of heads for n flips of a coin at *most* 50% of the time. In fact the only value of n where one can get a frequency of 0.5 for heads at least half the time is when n=2. P(HH or TT)=0.5 and P(HT or TH)=0.5 For higher values of n, the situation gets steadily worse. For n=3, it is again *impossible* to observe heads at a 0.5 frequency. For n=4, we find that we *observe* a 0.5 frequency of heads 3/8ths (0.375) of the time. In fact for n=4 it is more likely that you will observe (3H and 1T) or (1H and 3T) at a combined frequency of (0.5). The same is true for the sexes of children in four children families. Half the families will have three of one sex and one of the other. 3/8ths of the families will have two of each sex. And a mere 1/8th of the families will have all of one sex or the other. For high *even* values of n, the situation becomes rather dismal. For n=1000, one can only expect to *observe* a frequency of 0.5 for heads approximately 2.5% of the time. So contrary to intuition, the more times you flip the coin, the *less* likely you are to measure a frequency of heads equal to the *known* probability of getting getting heads on a coin flip in the first place. That in a nutshell is the Coin Flip Paradox and why I am a Bayesian. > The probability of an attribute A, relative to a > collective C, is then > defined as the limiting relative frequency of A in > C. Note that a constant > sequence such as H, H, H, ???, in which the limiting > relative frequency is > the same in any infinite subsequence, trivially > satisfies the axiom of > randomness. This puts some strain on the terminology > -- offhand, such > sequences appear to be as non-random as they come -- > although to be sure > it is desirable that probabilities be assigned even > in such sequences. On a more technical note for reasons given above, the probability of a random outcome is NOT the limiting frequency. It differs significantly from the mathematical definition of a limit as it is defined for a function. A true limit can never be reached with a finite input domain of a function. A frequency equal to the probability however *can* be reached in a finite sequence of random events (e.g. with coin flips, n=2 as above) however it is increasingly rare as the sequence grows in size becoming zero for an infinite sequence. If probability were a limiting frequency on the other hand then it would be mathematically *guanteed* that the frequency would be equal to the probability at infinite n. Futhermore limits are monotonic in the sense that for a true limit the observed frequency of an outcome for a higher n will always be closer to the limit than for a lower n. Again in random sequences, this is not the case. You can *observe* frequencies of random events that temporarily diverge from the probability of such events even for a long sequence of such events. For example you could flip a coin six times and get 3 heads and 3 tails and then get a run of heads on your next six tosses. Thus the *observed* frequency is moving away from the known probability. Mathematical limits do not behave this way. Thus the Axiom of Randomness is BOGUS. Unfortunately I have yet to come up with a better definition myself. > Entropy and randomness are very closely related > ideas, but I'm inclined to > keep them apart. So am I for the time being. 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 sentience at pobox.com Sun Jan 28 23:39:14 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:39:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070128164636.021f0c98@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127202020.0242be10@satx.rr.com> <45BD255E.9050503@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070128164636.021f0c98@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45BD3422.2010703@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 02:36 PM 1/28/2007 -0800, Eliezer wrote: > >>Yes, I've met ordinary mortals and been deeply shocked by the things >>they didn't know - but they still didn't believe that Star Wars is based >>on a true story. > > I viewed this (the guy made a slight hesitation, as I recall) as him > *interpreting* the question, perhaps as "Is Star Wars based on a > Bible battle? or WW2? or the Vietnam War?" Oh, wait, the Vietnam War, > what was that? Not knowing what the Vietnam war was, I find quite believable - I've encountered that level of ignorance in real human beings. But that's still not the same as thinking Star Wars is real. Damien, there's a whole lot of people will say damn near anything they think will get themselves on television. I'm not unwilling to believe but I'd prefer, ahem, a more scientific investigation. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 00:05:14 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:05:14 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] BOOK: Gerald Feinberg's "The Prometheus Project" Message-ID: <5366105b0701281605h270cfbe3va8620dce114e0691@mail.gmail.com> 18:02 Sunday, 28 January 2007 Hello all: Anyone read this? I found it at a used book store in Winnipeg, Manitoba. It looks like an early (1968) proto-transhumanist book calling for foresight on the behalf of increasing human technological prowess. If not, I'll (eventually) read it and see. It might make another good data point for Anders's graphing project on transhumanist thinkers. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jan 28 23:49:06 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:49:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] objections to current space probes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200701290009.l0T099b3021329@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury ... You really probably don't want to get me started... R. Come now sir. Let us look at your objections: 1. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/01/19/pluto.mission/index.html You correctly observe that this is not an orbital insertion mission, which would be really cool if we could do it. In fact it is possible, but extremely difficult. Getting the required delta V all the way out there to Pluto is most challenging with current technology. We must take into account that the entire payload gets extremely cold out there, so the usual propellants would be unworkable. Most likely we would need to go with nuclear propulsion, but those are getting ever more difficult to launch because of the anti-nuke protestors and unwilling congresspeople. If we were to design the mission so that the required delta V is within reason, Robert you and I are unlikely to live long enough to see it to fruition. I haven't done the calculations, but 50 to 60 years is probably about what would be required based on the calcs I can do in my head. 2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070111/sc_space/faultysoftwaremayhavedoomedm arsorbiter Mars Global Surveyor (a Lockheeed Martin product) ran flawlessly for over nine years. That is a long time for a spacecraft: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=15175&rsbci=0&fti=1 11&ti=0&sc=400 That the software contained a bug somewhere doesn't surprise me. When I see all the things that can go wrong with a spacecraft, and all the ways to miss something in the test phase, it surprises me that space probes work as often and as long as they do. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 29 00:16:53 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:16:53 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] BOOK: Gerald Feinberg's "The Prometheus Project" In-Reply-To: <5366105b0701281605h270cfbe3va8620dce114e0691@mail.gmail.co m> References: <5366105b0701281605h270cfbe3va8620dce114e0691@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070128181612.0248c958@satx.rr.com> A classic, from the guy who did the early work on (and named) the tachyon. From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 29 00:17:05 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:17:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127202020.0242be10@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <0E745D23-F7C2-472D-A89C-73736B9382A7@goertzel.org> Robert, I am curious for your new thoughts on aging mechanisms and life extension. Any preprints you could share? thx Ben G On Jan 28, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Damien, > > You need to *seriously* be worried about encouraging me to give up > on humanity. > I understand aging, I understand how to fix it and extend > lifespan. I have significant questions about *why* one should > bother to do so (propagating stupidity is of questionable value). [1] > > Posting URLs pointing out how *stupid* or uninformed the average > U.S. citizen [2], particularly when they are misled [3], is causes > me to debate seriously whether jumping off a bridge or jumping into > the SI camp (of letting the damm "FAI" take over) might not be > seriously better than the alternate paths. > > You run the risk of pointing out why the whole extropic effort is > doomed. Is that your goal? If you make being "stupid" a low cost > path then what one ends up with is more stupidity. > > Robert > > 1. I have been having discussions offlist with some about this. > What is the point to saving collections of information which are > destructive, unproductive, or potentially will ultimately have to > be deleted. (There are strategies by which they might be saved but > one needs to come up with a good reason for doing so.) > 2. Which one would hope the "average U.S. citizen" is better > educated than the average human on the planet -- at least they > aren't murdering and/or raping and/or eating each other as tends to > be the case in Uganda, Sudan and the Congo. > 3. The commentator, no matter what his accent is is not the > Australian Prime Minister. See [4]. Or is your goal to point out > how people in the U.S. will believe any assertion by someone with a > camera crew? > 4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/images/ > 20060516-1_p051606pm-0312jpg-515h.html > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 29 00:29:24 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:29:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] BOOK: Gerald Feinberg's "The Prometheus Project" In-Reply-To: <5366105b0701281605h270cfbe3va8620dce114e0691@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0701281605h270cfbe3va8620dce114e0691@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6881B226-896B-468A-9933-6625D136273E@goertzel.org> I read that book in the mid-70's and really enjoyed it (I was maybe 10 at the time...) I don't think it has much to add to the futurist discussion at this point though As I recall, he articulated a set of possible scenarios for the future (including a Luddite/spiritualist scenario, and a techno- Singularitarian type scenario, and a couple others), and suggested that to decide between them we should educate the whole world regarding all the options and put the matter toward a vote. A sort of "educated collective volition", one might say... -- Ben G On Jan 28, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Jay Dugger wrote: > 18:02 Sunday, 28 January 2007 > > Hello all: > > Anyone read this? I found it at a used book store in Winnipeg, > Manitoba. It looks like an early (1968) proto-transhumanist book > calling for foresight on the behalf of increasing human technological > prowess. > > If not, I'll (eventually) read it and see. It might make another good > data point for Anders's graphing project on transhumanist thinkers. > > -- > 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 From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jan 29 00:23:26 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:23:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <45BD255E.9050503@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200701290037.l0T0b5WH029003@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky ... > > ...refusing to accept reality... ... > > Yes, I've met ordinary mortals and been deeply shocked by the things > they didn't know - but they still didn't believe that Star Wars is based > on a true story... Eliezer S. Yudkowsky There were some ambiguous questions here. If someone were ask me how many world wars there have been, I would be hesitant to trot out the common answer. Citing only the two great wars of the 20th century seems rather Euro-centric. The struggle between communism and capitalism that went on for 40 years in the latter 20th century seems to me to qualify as a world war. The cultural war between radical Islm and the rest of the world seems it would qualify. Is Star Wars based on a true story? Depends on how one defines "based on". I have heard it said that Herbert's Dune is based on Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It would likely be difficult to find anyone who has read either, far more difficult to find anyone who has read both. If we use "based on" in the sense that the humans, clingons and vulcans are based on Americans, Chinese and Jews respectively, then one could see the claim that Star Wars could be based on the Maccabean revolt of the second century BCE. spike From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 01:26:59 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:26:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Discovery Channel: 2057 Message-ID: All, TDC seems to be running a 3 hour (consecutive) special "2057" tonight (started @ 8:00 PM EST on cable). It is about a lot of techno-medical advances that are in the pipeline. So far it seems right on the money (though I could forego Michio Kaku as a narrator). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Jan 29 01:58:20 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:58:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] In-Reply-To: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> References: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <008801c74348$f5c408c0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Wiki pedia Error Rates vs Britannica http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_compari son/ -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ben Goertzel Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:13 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] The issue with Wikipedia is that random people can edit it and insert incorrect information. The incidence of this is low but not zero, and I bet the error rate in Wikipedia is higher than in conventional encyclopedias. If I were a professor these days, I would allow students to cite Wikipedia as a general principle, but ask them to cite more reliable sources for highly critical pices of information... -- Ben From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 01:46:56 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:46:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox (was Randomness) In-Reply-To: <154003.91043.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> References: <154003.91043.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:05:39 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > I have been meaning to return to this particular issue > because I am completely disattisified with the Axiom > of Randomness as so stated. It is, as you mention, a *frequentist* idea of randomness. You note correctly that the frequentist interpretation of randomness (and of probability too, I would add) gives no account of the probability of *single* events, such as a single flip of a coin. This aspect of the frequency theory has always been known, and is the primary reason people like Karl Popper developed propensity theories of probability. It is also one reason to use Bayesian methods. Both Baysianists and propensity theorists can talk meaningfully about the probability of single or rare events. Frequentists cannot. > So contrary to intuition, the more > times you flip the coin, the *less* likely you are to > measure a frequency of heads equal to the *known* > probability of getting getting heads on a coin flip in > the first place. That in a nutshell is the Coin Flip > Paradox and why I am a Bayesian. I think your paradox here is based on either a false intuition or a misconception of frequentism. Frequentists do not argue that the observed frequency of heads should ever be *exactly* 0.5 in any finite number of observations. They argue merely that the observed frequency will *converge* on 0.5 as n tends to infinity. > If probability were a limiting frequency on > the other hand then it would be mathematically > *guanteed* that the frequency would be equal to the > probability at infinite n. But that is exactly the case according to the Von Mises's first empirical law of probability. Probability is calculated as the limiting frequency (calculated as a proportion or as a percentage) as n goes to infinity. It can be shown by the way that this convergence of the observed frequency follows an inverse square rule, not unlike some other supposed empirical laws of the universe. -gts From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Jan 29 04:59:42 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:59:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] In-Reply-To: <008801c74348$f5c408c0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070128235804.03a52c28@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:58 PM 1/28/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: snip >If I were a professor these days, I would allow students to cite Wikipedia >as a general principle, but ask them to cite more reliable sources for >highly critical pices of information... If I were a professor these day I would ask the kids to *write* a Wikipedia article and get it accepted. Keith From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 04:59:59 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:59:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox (was Randomness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:05:39 -0500, The > Avantguardian > wrote: > Both Baysianists and propensity theorists can talk > meaningfully about the > probability of single or rare events. Frequentists > cannot. Right. Which is a serious discontinuity in their theory in my view. To put it another way they borrow a tool from calculus called a limit and try to define a probability by it and it fails. Probability is not a limit, mathematically speaking. A random sequence should *converge* on any hypothesized limit as n approaches infinity. With a real world random sequence, this does not happen, not at infinity. Instead the measured frequency converges infinitely many times on the probility and diverges from that same probability just as often. Just because it has bill on its face does not make it a duck. It could be a platypus. What I am saying is that math shows that probability is not a frequency at all, limiting or not, but is instead the average or expected frequency. By forcing the concept of a limit onto probability axiomatically in the definition discards a great deal of the information available to Bayesians. Invoking infinities where they are not observed in nature is sloppy and unnecessary. > I think your paradox here is based on either a false > intuition or a > misconception of frequentism. Frequentists do not > argue that the observed > frequency of heads should ever be *exactly* 0.5 in > any finite number of > observations. But they don't explain why it can be *exactly* 0.5 infinitely many times in an infinite sequence either. This is not what limits and mathematical convergence of sequences are designed to do. It's a mathematical fudge rather than a real explanation. > They argue merely that the observed > frequency will > *converge* on 0.5 as n tends to infinity. > > > If probability were a limiting frequency on > > the other hand then it would be mathematically > > *guanteed* that the frequency would be equal to > the > > probability at infinite n. > > But that is exactly the case according to the Von > Mises's first empirical > law of probability. Probability is calculated as the > limiting frequency > (calculated as a proportion or as a percentage) as n > goes to infinity. I am not saying you *can't* define probability in such a fashion, I am saying it is the less useful definition of randomness. Especially since perfectly ordered sequences like infinitely flipping a two-headed coin can pass as random, under the Axiom of Randomness when they clearly are not. Just like the defining "duckness" by the presence of a bill allows platypusses(platypi?) to pass as ducks. It > can be shown by the way that this convergence of the > observed frequency > follows an inverse square rule, not unlike some > other supposed empirical > laws of the universe. Precisely. The *actual* frequency of any real random sequence would be more accurately described to chaotically orbit the probability, like a strange attractor, rather than approach it as any kind of deterministic limit in a classical calculus sense. Well that's my "Axiom of Randomness" and I am sticking with it. If it is true then Everrett and Bohm were right. All randomness is actually determinism with hidden variables. And probability, uncertainty, freewill, and possibly consciousness itself all owe their existense to blissful ignorance of a future that is in reality meant to be. I may even be able to come up with theorem to prove it or rather make good use of it since it is axiomatic. See how easy axioms are? heh. ;) 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Jan 29 05:45:25 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:45:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas Message-ID: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >Not knowing what the Vietnam war was, I find quite believable - I've >encountered that level of ignorance in real human beings. But that's >still not the same as thinking Star Wars is real. That's one of the funniest lines I've read in a long time. Ignorance about a war Americans fought in the not-so-distant past is possible, but ignorance about the holy canon of Star Wars isn't. There are more people who have never SEEN Star Wars than are dreamt of in your philosophy! They don't know what the hell Star Wars is, except a name that exists in the culture. >Damien, there's a whole lot of people will say damn near anything they >think will get themselves on television. I'm not unwilling to believe >but I'd prefer, ahem, a more scientific investigation. Have none of you seen BORAT?! If not, please do so! Then you'll understand what you're up against. While some of it was scripted (like the naked wrestling, Pam Anderson, the prostitute, etc.), the most outrageous bits of interviewage, like the gun shop owner, the frat boys and the rodeo, are very, very real. THAT'S what makes it so f@#%ing brilliant. If you ask the right questions to the right people, you get the most shocking responses. Have none of you actually held conversations with "normal" people? You all need to get out more and see who your cognitive and longevity enhancements are going to effect! I suggest cognitive enhancements first. Then longevity. I doubt none of what I watched on this vid, except to say 1) obviously those who knew the answers were cut. You don't know how many right answers he got vs. wrong answers and 2) when a camera is trained on a person, most people get much dumber than they would be normally. Brain paralysis and extreme self-consciousness can set in. But that's really not an excuse either. Don't forget. 50% of people are below average. THAT'S the truth that's out there. PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 29 05:51:16 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:51:16 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <003701c7430a$99a30480$77084e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <003701c7430a$99a30480$77084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070128234749.02458aa0@satx.rr.com> At 01:31 PM 1/28/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > > Published: December 2, 2004 > > > Department of Energy released a report yesterday that says the > > evidence remains inconclusive > >The evidence for the existence of phlogiston is inconclusive too. I missed the DoE report reaching that conclusion about phlogiston. Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 29 05:53:29 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:53:29 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox (was Randomness) In-Reply-To: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The Avantguardian wrote: > By forcing the concept of a limit onto probability > axiomatically in the definition discards a great deal > of the information available to Bayesians. Invoking > infinities where they are not observed in nature is > sloppy and unnecessary. Thank you for pointing out this important truth relevant to accuracy in one's modeling of the universe. Another important one is that no model involving observation can be complete without the observer. Both of these points are sadly lacking in much discussion of "probability", which might be better understood as the uncertainty of a necessarily subjective observer. I could mention that it comes down to the importance of context, but I won't since that seems to be counter-productive. - Jef From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jan 29 06:01:35 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:01:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <45BD8DBF.2040105@pobox.com> pjmanney wrote: >> Not knowing what the Vietnam war was, I find quite believable - >> I've encountered that level of ignorance in real human beings. But >> that's still not the same as thinking Star Wars is real. > > That's one of the funniest lines I've read in a long time. Ignorance > about a war Americans fought in the not-so-distant past is possible, > but ignorance about the holy canon of Star Wars isn't. > > ...I stand corrected, then. > There are more people who have never SEEN Star Wars than are dreamt > of in your philosophy! They don't know what the hell Star Wars is, > except a name that exists in the culture. I confess that possibility hadn't occurred to me (that the respondent has no idea what "Star Wars" is). Still, I'd bet that more young Americans have no idea when the Vietnam War occurred, than have no idea what Star Wars is... yet, nonetheless, I stand corrected. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Jan 29 04:54:32 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:54:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <003701c7430a$99a30480$77084e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:31 PM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote: >"Damien Broderick" > > > Published: December 2, 2004 > > In a new review of cold fusion - the claim that energy can be > > generated by running electrical current through water - the > > Department of Energy released a report yesterday that says the > > evidence remains inconclusive, echoing a similar report 15 years ago. > >The evidence for the existence of phlogiston is inconclusive too. Read the Wikipedia article. >The >newspaper report you quote was more than 2 years ago, computers have doubled >in power in that time; so how have things changed in the cold fusion field in >all that time? They haven't advanced one inch, zero nada zilch goose egg! This is a real apples and oranges comparison. The physics behind computers is reasonably well understood. There are not even any theories that account for the behavior of these cells. >It's still inconclusive. Not exactly. If you build 100 identical cells and charge them exactly the same way some fraction of them, typically about half, will exhibit anomalous behavior in generating heat. Why do so do it and not others? That's the maddening question besides what is actually happening. >Prediction time: I predict we will be in exactly >precisely the same situation 2 years from now, or 17. When something remains >inconclusive for that long it's time to move on. You might be right, but the evidence is fairly strong that we don't understand something about physics. Is it important? I don't know. >And the same could be said >of ESP bullshit. ESP is in a different category. You can reliably generate excess heat in some subset of cells. ESP has (as far as I know) never generated such a similar example. Keith Henson From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 29 06:06:09 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:06:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070128235315.022c89d8@satx.rr.com> At 12:45 AM 1/29/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >But that's really not an excuse either. Don't forget. 50% of >people are below average. THAT'S the truth that's out there. True, but I think the practical implications of that mathematical truism are not instantly obvious. For a start, people who score between, say, 95 and 105 are not especially distinguishable from each another in the real world, yet they make up a large chunk in the middle of the crowd. On the other hand, people with average scores plus or minus a bit do seem, looking from the outskirts, to be astonishingly thick, slow and incurious. I suspect it's more relevant to say: "Don't forget, nearly 70% of people are between 85 and 115, plus a bunch of the terminally stupid on the left tail, and 95% of people either side of the average are under 130, are you scared yet?" Damien Broderick From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 06:34:43 2007 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:34:43 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] newsvine: "Sure, make me a cyborg" Message-ID: <3642969c0701282234p573141d6g59fa8e3dc8619e63@mail.gmail.com> http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/28/542065-sure-make-me-a-cyborg From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jan 29 06:54:21 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:54:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070128235315.022c89d8@satx.rr.com> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070128235315.022c89d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45BD9A1D.10101@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 12:45 AM 1/29/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: > > >>But that's really not an excuse either. Don't forget. 50% of >>people are below average. THAT'S the truth that's out there. > > True, but I think the practical implications of that mathematical > truism are not instantly obvious. For a start, people who score > between, say, 95 and 105 are not especially distinguishable from each > another in the real world, yet they make up a large chunk in the > middle of the crowd. If my vague acquaintance with the present state of g-factor research serves me correctly, this is not so. 10 points makes a considerable difference in life outcomes within the 80-120 range. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Mon Jan 29 00:25:31 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:25:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <19674951.170711170008120227.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <19674951.170711170008120227.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: Awesome! I haven't posted to this list before, but I'm thrilled to hear someone is succeeding in telling singularity related stories. CONGRATULATIONS! Josh On Jan 28, 2007, at 1:15 PM, pjmanney wrote: > Damien Broderick wrote: > >> I'm far too shy and discreet to mention that K-MACHINES, the second >> book in my Tegmark-ish Singularity diptych begun with GODPLAYERS, has >> just been awarded the 2007 Aurealis Award for best Australian science >> fiction novel of 2006. > > CONGRATULATIONS!!! That's fantabulous! Self-aggrandize away -- you > deserve it! > > PJ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sat Jan 27 18:35:04 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:35:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Questionnaire on senses In-Reply-To: <1891.86.144.174.118.1169912322.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <635136.34284.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Anders Sandberg wrote: >Well, that is a natural sense. Sometimes called >proprioception. The sense of where the different body >parts are and in what tension muscles and tendons >are. Yes, you are right. I was focusing on the five senses. >It is surprising how often people completely fail to >notice it. I learned to relax by deliberately >learning how different muscles feel when they are >tense... It is surprising how many people are not aware of Kinesthesia but then again not many people are taught at a young age to recognize tension. I've been dancing since the age of 5 so I was lucky enough to learn what my body is capable and not capable of doing. I do wish parents would look deeper into the benefits of certain arts, such as ballet, martial arts or even the benefits of yoga. It is important to keep the mind working but it's just as important to learn about one's own body. Anna:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 07:59:40 2007 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:59:40 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <45BD9A1D.10101@pobox.com> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070128235315.022c89d8@satx.rr.com> <45BD9A1D.10101@pobox.com> Message-ID: <3642969c0701282359l1ea4309dqa0ec26abdb8a2ad0@mail.gmail.com> this is a -wee- bit of a wakeup call in regards to refutation of the whole 'most people are stupid!' meme. it's actually a meme I'm kind of fond of refuting myself. Wherefore art these stupid masses of people, I say? Is it me? you? met anyone really stupid lately? Many seem to rant and moan about the ignorance of the masses without actually providing tail+pin+donkey, and pretty much everyone I've ever met seems relatively clever and sharp-witted and altogether non-bovine. Where's Wally? Blink. The thing is, there -are- stupid people out there, and we're them, in one way or another. - some of us don't pay their bills on time, budget or save money. ever. (me. yes, it's stupid) - some of us don't comment appreciatively on a colleague/peer's new shoes/hair/outfit. (stupid, in a you-never-get-laid kind of way) - some of us are gullible, and susceptible to parroting unsubstantiated-yet-oh-so-juicy gossip (quote Madeleine Albright: 'I'm not a person who thinks the world would be entirely different if it was run by women. If you think that, you've forgotten what high school was like.') - some of us don't know our history that well, or at least know it patchily (gameshow kind-of-stupid) - most of us couldn't survive 14 days in the woods in Texas (the dumbasses in the video probably could though, with any Star Wars fans among them probably less likely) - none of us polymaths (OK, a few of -you- guys are, but you're so many standard deviations from the mean you don't even -count-, statistically speaking). all the g-factor data points are no doubt well-researched; however it could just be that if you take well-educated, healthily raised and positive-role-model rich children, find out all the things they're smart at, and assign data points accordingly, you may find the tests for these data points reflect badly on ill-educated, unhealthy and socially disadvantaged kids. i.e. the kids of 'stupid' people, and hence stupid people themselves. I'm pretty sure I could devise a test that measures fashion sense, social communication and sexual technique and end up finding that people who do well on the test also live longer, earn more and achieve well. how well would this test correlate with IQ? poorly I would suspect :-) argh. I'm back to refuting stupid people, and I'm doing it by attacking IQ no less; disregard, with the the proviso that Steven Rose doesn't seem to think too much of this particular hangover from Skinner's behavioural psychology - mayhap the baby should have preceded the bathwater? In any regard neuroscientists are my root authority when it comes to brain certificates, and his distrust of IQ seems also to play along to his deconstruction of the twins-raised-separately foundations that Pinker seems to rely on rather heavily. final word: we're all a bit stupid in one way or another, and some are definitely more stupid than others. does it mean most people are stupid? subjectively yes, objectively no. is there a universal test for stupid? no. should we take singular questions directed away from people's area of expertise and background as a test of their intelligence? no, we've all got at least one question as-yet-unasked (if we're lucky) that would make us look like a dumbass. some just have more unasked questions than others :-) From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jan 29 07:59:54 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:59:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] In-Reply-To: <008801c74348$f5c408c0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> <008801c74348$f5c408c0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <20070129075953.GL21677@leitl.org> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:58:20PM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > > Wiki pedia Error Rates vs Britannica > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/ You cannot cite against a particular article version, and articles see some churn, some of them heavy, and some of them regress. Deliberate insertion of wrong information is quite trivial. -- 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 emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 08:23:48 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:53:48 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701282359l1ea4309dqa0ec26abdb8a2ad0@mail.gmail.com> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070128235315.022c89d8@satx.rr.com> <45BD9A1D.10101@pobox.com> <3642969c0701282359l1ea4309dqa0ec26abdb8a2ad0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0701290023r4b06fe45r195e2670ffbc8b1e@mail.gmail.com> "... after careful analysis I have developed a sophisticated theory to explain the existence of ... bizarre workplace behaviour. People are idiots. Including me. Everyone is an idiot, not just the people with low SAT scores. The only differences among us is that we're idiots about different things at different times. No matter how smart you are, you spend much of your day being an idiot. That's the central premise of this scholarly work." Scott Adams, "The Dilbert Principle" Emlyn On 29/01/07, kevin.osborne wrote: > > this is a -wee- bit of a wakeup call in regards to refutation of the > whole 'most people are stupid!' meme. > > it's actually a meme I'm kind of fond of refuting myself. Wherefore > art these stupid masses of people, I say? Is it me? you? met anyone > really stupid lately? Many seem to rant and moan about the ignorance > of the masses without actually providing tail+pin+donkey, and pretty > much everyone I've ever met seems relatively clever and sharp-witted > and altogether non-bovine. Where's Wally? > > Blink. The thing is, there -are- stupid people out there, and we're > them, in one way or another. > > - some of us don't pay their bills on time, budget or save money. > ever. (me. yes, it's stupid) > - some of us don't comment appreciatively on a colleague/peer's new > shoes/hair/outfit. (stupid, in a you-never-get-laid kind of way) > - some of us are gullible, and susceptible to parroting > unsubstantiated-yet-oh-so-juicy gossip (quote Madeleine Albright: 'I'm > not a person who thinks the world would be entirely different if it > was run by women. If you think that, you've forgotten what high school > was like.') > - some of us don't know our history that well, or at least know it > patchily (gameshow kind-of-stupid) > - most of us couldn't survive 14 days in the woods in Texas (the > dumbasses in the video probably could though, with any Star Wars fans > among them probably less likely) > - none of us polymaths (OK, a few of -you- guys are, but you're so > many standard deviations from the mean you don't even -count-, > statistically speaking). > > all the g-factor data points are no doubt well-researched; however it > could just be that if you take well-educated, healthily raised and > positive-role-model rich children, find out all the things they're > smart at, and assign data points accordingly, you may find the tests > for these data points reflect badly on ill-educated, unhealthy and > socially disadvantaged kids. i.e. the kids of 'stupid' people, and > hence stupid people themselves. I'm pretty sure I could devise a test > that measures fashion sense, social communication and sexual technique > and end up finding that people who do well on the test also live > longer, earn more and achieve well. how well would this test correlate > with IQ? poorly I would suspect :-) > > argh. I'm back to refuting stupid people, and I'm doing it by > attacking IQ no less; disregard, with the the proviso that Steven Rose > doesn't seem to think too much of this particular hangover from > Skinner's behavioural psychology - mayhap the baby should have > preceded the bathwater? In any regard neuroscientists are my root > authority when it comes to brain certificates, and his distrust of IQ > seems also to play along to his deconstruction of the > twins-raised-separately foundations that Pinker seems to rely on > rather heavily. > > final word: we're all a bit stupid in one way or another, and some are > definitely more stupid than others. does it mean most people are > stupid? subjectively yes, objectively no. is there a universal test > for stupid? no. should we take singular questions directed away from > people's area of expertise and background as a test of their > intelligence? no, we've all got at least one question as-yet-unasked > (if we're lucky) that would make us look like a dumbass. some just > have more unasked questions than others :-) > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jan 29 08:52:21 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:22:21 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Parkinson's Law Message-ID: <710b78fc0701290052j406dacb2x2011ad85137bb375@mail.gmail.com> This is a real oldie (1955), but a gem. Anyone bamboozled by their demoralizing life amongst the cubes, who's ever wondered if all these busy people are actually doing anything measurably useful, should read this. http://alpha1.montclair.edu/~lebelp/ParkinsonsLaw.pdf "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion" Factor I. An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals and Factor II. Officials make work for each other. I'm sure there's an indirect link to transhumanism in there somewhere. Um, he uses some statistics. Mmm, statistics... Emlyn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Mon Jan 29 10:32:47 2007 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:32:47 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Education monopolies [was: Education in 2030] In-Reply-To: <20070129075953.GL21677@leitl.org> References: <645407D1-76D8-4620-A274-BAC1A592FCB9@goertzel.org> <008801c74348$f5c408c0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <20070129075953.GL21677@leitl.org> Message-ID: <1170066768.15335.31.camel@alito.homeip.net> On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 08:59 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 08:58:20PM -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > > > > Wiki pedia Error Rates vs Britannica > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/wikipedia_britannica_science_comparison/ > > You cannot cite against a particular article version, Wikipedia claims you can. The 'Permanent link' href on the left hand side is a hint. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:URLs&oldid=87864074 in the Page History section for more. You can also read the diff's for obvious introductions of stupidity. From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Jan 29 13:01:57 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:01:57 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <45BD9A1D.10101@pobox.com> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070128235315.022c89d8@satx.rr.com> <45BD9A1D.10101@pobox.com> Message-ID: <60123.86.140.226.63.1170075717.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:middle of the crowd. > > If my vague acquaintance with the present state of g-factor research > serves me correctly, this is not so. 10 points makes a considerable > difference in life outcomes within the 80-120 range. Yes, although the effects get larger in the lower range. There is a threshold effect in being able to understand written work instructions (around 95, I think) that really makes a lot of difference for life outcomes. See Linda Gottfredson's papers on real life uses of intelligence, they are very interesting. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 29 14:57:45 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:57:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: On Jan 29, 2007, at 12:45 AM, pjmanney wrote: >> Not knowing what the Vietnam war was, I find quite believable - I've >> encountered that level of ignorance in real human beings. But that's >> still not the same as thinking Star Wars is real. > > That's one of the funniest lines I've read in a long time. > Ignorance about a war Americans fought in the not-so-distant past > is possible, but ignorance about the holy canon of Star Wars isn't. > > > > There are more people who have never SEEN Star Wars than are dreamt > of in your philosophy! They don't know what the hell Star Wars is, > except a name that exists in the culture. Please note that Star Wars was also, in the 1980's, the popular name for a proposed US missile defense system proposed by President Reagan, Edward Teller, and others. It involved using long-range lasers to shoot down missiles and planes, I believe. It was hyped a lot but ultimately was rejected due to technological obstacles. Anyway, I think PJ has a good point. Thinking "Star Wars" is real having just watched the actual movie is one thing. Responding to questions about it in a detached conversational context is another. -- Ben G From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 15:51:00 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:51:00 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:59:59 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: >> Both Baysianists and propensity theorists can talk >> meaningfully about the probability of single or rare events. >> Frequentists cannot. > > Right. Which is a serious discontinuity in their > theory in my view. I would not call it a discontinuity -- but it is perhaps a needless limitation. Like you I'm inclined to look for something better than frequentism, but not necessarily for the reasons you're giving. You may be right for the wrong reasons. :) Von Mises (main developer of the frequency theory) was first and foremost an *empiricist*. As such there is something refreshing and honest about his approach to probability theory, at least to an empirically minded person like me. To him, probability was a branch of *natural science* -- not a branch of logic or epistemology as so many philosophers of the subject suppose. He studied frequencies of outcomes and derived laws from his observations in much the same way that a physicist studies and derives laws about the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. > To put it another way they borrow a > tool from calculus called a limit and try to define a > probability by it and it fails. But as Von Mises argued, other sciences also make use of infinities in their mathematical abstractions. Why should the science of probability be prohibited from using them? > A random sequence should *converge* on anyhypothesized limit as n > approaches infinity. It does! > Instead the measured frequency converges infinitely > many times on the probability and diverges from that > same probability just as often. Though it is true the measured frequency fluctuates, sometimes diverging and sometimes converging, the divergences decrease in magnitude as n increases, as the measured frequency converges over-all on the probability. This can be demonstrated both mathematically and empirically. For example experiments will show that after 1000 flips, the frequency of heads might be something like .505, then after 10,000 flips it might be something like .5001, then after 100,000 flips it might be something like .500002, with the frequency of heads generally converging on the idealized value of .500... as n goes hypothetically to infinity. No one disputes this fact! Here is Von Mises' Axiom of Convergence in formal terms: _Let A be an attribute of a collective C, then as n goes to infinity, m(A)/n exists._ (and m(A)/n is the probability of A in C.) Here is the Axiom of Convergence in terms of coin flips, (fair or unfair coin, it makes no difference here): _Let H be the Heads attribute in a sequence of n flips of a coin, then as n goes to infinity, m(H)/n exists._ So, for an idealized fair coin, m(H)/n as derived above = the p of Heads = .5 exactly, and this number exists mathematically. Philosophers sometimes object to this use of mathematical infinities, (there is in fact a branch of frequentism called 'finite frequentism' just to answer those objections), but no one seriously questions the general usefulness of this axiom as given in its own terms. Can you imagine a world in which relative frequencies do not converge on some value consistent with Von Mises' axiom of convergence? I cannot. And even if such an insane world were imaginable, that world is certainly not the one in which we live. Von Mises and the frequentists deserve credit where credit is due. The question for philosophers of probability is not whether frequencies converge as Mises observed. It is rather *why* they converge. Subjective bayesians have no answer to this question any more than do the frequentists. Propensity theorists however do have an answer. > I am not saying you *can't* define probability in such > a fashion, I am saying it is the less useful > definition of randomness. I'll answer this point in another post... -gts From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 29 16:08:04 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:08:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] newsvine: "Sure, make me a cyborg" In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701282234p573141d6g59fa8e3dc8619e63@mail.gmail.co m> References: <3642969c0701282234p573141d6g59fa8e3dc8619e63@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070129100644.04c302d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:34 AM 1/29/2007, you wrote: >http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/28/542065-sure-make-me-a-cyborg Nice, thanks. How do you see the distinction between cyborg and transhuman? Do you think the terms are interchangeable? I wrote a paper on this but I'd like to read what others think. 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 Jan 29 17:06:27 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:06:27 -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><003701c7430a$99a30480$77084e0c@MyComputer> <7D0E03F6-251B-4A0B-9F23-D47268FBE4F4@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <024401c743c7$fa740990$500a4e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > Early on the exponential growth curve of progress in a given area, > progress can seem slow... No, I'm not talking about slow growth, I'm talking about ZERO growth. The cold fusion field has not moved an inch in 17 years, NOT ONE INCH. The pattern is always the same, every few months somebody few have heard of claims to have detected excess heat, a few people even more obscure repeat the experiment and say they see it too; but when people you actually have head of try it they see nothing. As I said before if you're looking for something that does not exist a poor researcher will get more positive results than a good one. Look, we both know we will be in exactly the same situation one year from now, why do you suppose that is? I mean you don't need a 10 billion dollar accelerator to do this work, and we're not talking about some deep abstract quantum principle, it's just heat, it's either there or it's not. Scientists routinely detect FAR more subtle things than that! So what is it about that heat that is so different from other scientific facts? I will tell you the difference, one exists and one does not. And that is why we will be in exactly the same position one year from today. Scientists can never prove something does not exist, but they can prove something is not worth their time. And ESP is even worse than cold fusion, it hasn't moved an inch in well over a century. Yes it would be pretty neat if both those things were true, but wising does not make it so. Get over it. > By your argument, AGI should also be abandoned due to lack of prior > progress... I'm just guessing but I assume the homemade acronym AGI stands for artificial general intelligence not the American Geological Institute or Adjusted Gross Income (why you would feel the need to stick a "G" in there is beyond we) And I certainly don't agree there has been no progress, it's just that as soon as a computer can do something (recognizing speech, solving equations, playing chess) people change their minds and say that's not really intelligence. AI is whatever a computer can't do yet. John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 17:02:48 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:02:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:59:59 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > The *actual* frequency of any real random > sequence would be more accurately described to > chaotically orbit the probability, like a strange > attractor, rather than approach it as any kind of > deterministic limit in a classical calculus sense. I totally disagree, and wonder where you came up with the unusual idea that frequencies "chaotically orbit the probability like a strange attractor". Do you have mathematical or empirical evidence to support that claim? Frequentists have plenty of evidence, both empirical and mathematical, to support their much more boring claim that frequencies converge in an ordinary way as n increases. But let's talk a bit about the meaning of randomness. I surmise that you see an ambiguity in the conventional view of randomness that I also see, but that you are expressing your displeasure about it in ways that make no sense to me. As I mentioned and you agreed, randomness and entropy are closely related ideas, but the ideas should (perhaps) be kept apart. Rafal objected, for example, when I wrote that a sequence of flips of a heavily weighted coin is still a completely random sequence. It seems his intuition was telling him that a weighted coin should produce a sequence less random than a fair coin. I think Rafal really meant that such a heavily weighted sequence has lower *entropy*, not lower *randomness*. I think people are sometimes confused about the two terms because of their close meanings. As probability theorists normally use the word (at least in my experience) randomness is mainly about the independence (or exchangeability) of individual trials/observations, not about the measure of disorder in the sequence of trials/observations. The situation is made more cloudy (or perhaps more clear, depending on your perspective) by algorithmic definitions of randomness. Consider a binary sequence generated by an idealized perfectly random fair coin, where Heads=1 and Tails=0. What if this unlikely sequence came up? 11111111111111111111 20 heads in a row! Is this freaky sequence still random? It certainly doesn't *look* random, but how could it not still *be* random? After all we stipulated in advance that it was generated by an idealized perfectly random coin-flip process. Well, according to the algorithmic definition of randomness, randomness is a property of the *sequence*, not a property of the *process*. So this sequence of 20 heads is extremely un-random by that definition even though it was obtained via a purely random process. This is a sort of marriage of entropy to randomness, for better or worse. -gts From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jan 29 17:48:02 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:48:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0701290023r4b06fe45r195e2670ffbc8b1e@mail.gmail.com> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070128235315.022c89d8@satx.rr.com> <45BD9A1D.10101@pobox.com> <3642969c0701282359l1ea4309dqa0ec26abdb8a2ad0@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0701290023r4b06fe45r195e2670ffbc8b1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45BE3352.3090500@pobox.com> Emlyn wrote: > "... after careful analysis I have developed a sophisticated theory to > explain the existence of ... bizarre workplace behaviour. People are > idiots. Including me. Everyone is an idiot, not just the people with low > SAT scores. The only differences among us is that we're idiots about > different things at different times. No matter how smart you are, you > spend much of your day being an idiot. That's the central premise of > this scholarly work." > > Scott Adams, "The Dilbert Principle" "'Outside the laboratory, scientists are no wiser than anyone else.' ...It seems much too pessimistic to say that scientists are literally no wiser than average, that there is literally zero correlation. But the proverb does appear true to some degree, and I propose that we should be very disturbed by this fact. We should not sigh, and shake our heads sadly. Rather we should sit bolt upright in alarm. Why? Well, suppose that an apprentice shepherd is laboriously trained to count sheep, as they pass in and out of a fold. Thus the shepherd knows when all the sheep have left, and when all the sheep have returned. Then you give the shepherd a few apples, and say: "How many apples?" But the shepherd stares at you blankly, because they weren't trained to count apples - just sheep. You would probably suspect that the shepherd didn't understand counting very well." - Eliezer Yudkowsky, "Outside the Laboratory" -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jan 29 17:58:58 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:58:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] newsvine: "Sure, make me a cyborg" In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070129100644.04c302d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <3642969c0701282234p573141d6g59fa8e3dc8619e63@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20070129100644.04c302d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <45BE35E2.8000507@mac.com> They are not intechageable. One is about whether the body has all organic parts or not. The other is about the goals, views and ideals of the brain/mind realized in that body. Conceivably a person could even be tranferred fully into an artificial body or uploaded without being in the least interested in or a proponent of transhumanism. - samantha Natasha Vita-More wrote: > At 12:34 AM 1/29/2007, you wrote: >> http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/28/542065-sure-make-me-a-cyborg > > Nice, thanks. > > How do you see the distinction between cyborg and transhuman? Do you > think the terms are interchangeable? > > I wrote a paper on this but I'd like to read what others think. > > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jan 29 18:13:04 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:13:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0701290023r4b06fe45r195e2670ffbc8b1e@mail.gmail.co m> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070128235315.022c89d8@satx.rr.com> <45BD9A1D.10101@pobox.com> <3642969c0701282359l1ea4309dqa0ec26abdb8a2ad0@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0701290023r4b06fe45r195e2670ffbc8b1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129120809.0227f578@satx.rr.com> At 06:53 PM 1/29/2007 +1030, Emlyn wrote: >"... after careful analysis I have developed a sophisticated theory >to explain the existence of ... bizarre workplace behaviour. People >are idiots. Including me. ...." > >Scott Adams, "The Dilbert Principle" Yep, including him: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/scott_adams_is_a_wally/ From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jan 29 18:51:49 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:51:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Gordon, it might be more interesting and more productive--for the rest of us--if you would contribute statements that you personally find profound, newsworthy, or otherwise relevant to extropian themes. It's a bit frustrating to watch as you continue to stir the pot, paraphrasing the work of others, claiming to play devil's advocate, but showing no particular insight or other tangible contribution to this public forum. Probability, Randomness, Bayesian, Frequentist; it's all out there on the web and in books. There certainly are different schools of thought on these topics, but what is it that you think you're adding? Do you have a point? > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:03 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:59:59 -0500, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > > The *actual* frequency of any real random > > sequence would be more accurately described to > > chaotically orbit the probability, like a strange > > attractor, rather than approach it as any kind of > > deterministic limit in a classical calculus sense. > > I totally disagree, and wonder where you came up with the unusual > idea > that frequencies "chaotically orbit the probability like a strange > attractor". Do you have mathematical or empirical evidence to > support that > claim? > > Frequentists have plenty of evidence, both empirical and > mathematical, to > support their much more boring claim that frequencies converge in > an > ordinary way as n increases. > > But let's talk a bit about the meaning of randomness. > > I surmise that you see an ambiguity in the conventional view of > randomness > that I also see, but that you are expressing your displeasure about > it in > ways that make no sense to me. > > As I mentioned and you agreed, randomness and entropy are closely > related > ideas, but the ideas should (perhaps) be kept apart. > > Rafal objected, for example, when I wrote that a sequence of flips > of a > heavily weighted coin is still a completely random sequence. It > seems his > intuition was telling him that a weighted coin should produce a > sequence > less random than a fair coin. > > I think Rafal really meant that such a heavily weighted sequence > has lower > *entropy*, not lower *randomness*. I think people are sometimes > confused > about the two terms because of their close meanings. > > As probability theorists normally use the word (at least in my > experience) > randomness is mainly about the independence (or exchangeability) of > individual trials/observations, not about the measure of disorder > in the > sequence of trials/observations. > > The situation is made more cloudy (or perhaps more clear, depending > on > your perspective) by algorithmic definitions of randomness. > > Consider a binary sequence generated by an idealized perfectly > random fair > coin, where Heads=1 and Tails=0. What if this unlikely sequence > came up? > > 11111111111111111111 > > 20 heads in a row! Is this freaky sequence still random? It > certainly > doesn't *look* random, but how could it not still *be* random? > After all > we stipulated in advance that it was generated by an idealized > perfectly > random coin-flip process. > > Well, according to the algorithmic definition of randomness, > randomness is > a property of the *sequence*, not a property of the *process*. So > this > sequence of 20 heads is extremely un-random by that definition even > though > it was obtained via a purely random process. This is a sort of > marriage of > entropy to randomness, for better or worse. > > -gts > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Mon Jan 29 18:52:26 2007 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:52:26 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <652BEE47-B138-469F-826E-E0CB94A04505@ceruleansystems.com> On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:57 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: > Please note that Star Wars was also, in the 1980's, the popular name > for a proposed US missile defense system proposed by President > Reagan, Edward Teller, and others. > > It involved using long-range lasers to shoot down missiles and > planes, I believe. It was hyped a lot but ultimately was rejected > due to technological obstacles. It was a lot more than lasers, but ultimately rejected? Not really, and certainly not due to technological obstacles. In terms of science and technological R&D it was an extremely successful military program. Even though the technology has been deployed incrementally and slowly (just about every new weapon system borrows heavily from "Star Wars" technologies), we are also talking about the development of high-energy physics and engineering in domains that had not even been seriously considered before. Those things take time, you can't just pull them out of a hat. At this point, almost all of the original "technological obstacles" have solutions that are doing well in field trials or have been deployed. Lasers of all scales? Check. Hyperkinetic rockets? Check. Kinetic intercept? Check. Electromagnetic guns? Check. None of it was impossible, it just required the development of very advanced materials science that did not yet exist when the project was started. In fact, the only Star Wars technologies that I can think of that did not produce viable capability was some of the more exotic particle beam weapons and similar. All the rest are in late-stage field trials, are currently transitioning to production, or are already in production. What did change was the geopolitical situation over the last quarter century, so the deployment patterns for the technology are not what they originally envisioned. Most of these technologies are actually seeing first deployment in tactical weapons since those will have more immediate use than thousands of strategic missile killers. Rather than mounting hyperkinetic missiles on satellites, they are mounting them on Hummers. Which makes sense. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 19:05:48 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:05:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Do you have a point? I was going to ask you the same question, Jef. If you have no real interest in the philosophy of probability then I wonder why you keep interjecting with your uninformed comments. Stu -gts From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 20:46:51 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:46:51 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas In-Reply-To: <45BE3352.3090500@pobox.com> References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070128235315.022c89d8@satx.rr.com> <45BD9A1D.10101@pobox.com> <3642969c0701282359l1ea4309dqa0ec26abdb8a2ad0@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0701290023r4b06fe45r195e2670ffbc8b1e@mail.gmail.com> <45BE3352.3090500@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 1/29/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > "'Outside the laboratory, scientists are no wiser than anyone else.' > ...It seems much too pessimistic to say that scientists are literally no > wiser than average, that there is literally zero correlation. But the > proverb does appear true to some degree, and I propose that we should be > very disturbed by this fact. We should not sigh, and shake our heads > sadly. Rather we should sit bolt upright in alarm. Why? Well, suppose > that an apprentice shepherd is laboriously trained to count sheep, as > they pass in and out of a fold. Thus the shepherd knows when all the > sheep have left, and when all the sheep have returned. Then you give > the shepherd a few apples, and say: "How many apples?" But the > shepherd stares at you blankly, because they weren't trained to count > apples - just sheep. You would probably suspect that the shepherd > didn't understand counting very well." > Fear not. Various polls have demonstrated that further education and science training does make people much more sceptical about pseudo-science and magical belief systems. The Harris polls are the ones that get in the newspapers. The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2005 The table you want is about halfway down the page: TABLE 2 FIFTEEN BELIEFS ? BY GENDER AND EDUCATION (Unable to paste - formatting scrambles) But for example, belief in Angels drops from 79% to 41% belief in Ghosts drops from 50% to 22% belief in astrology drops from 35% to 6% But knowledge of science is still very poor in the US and Europe general public. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding Some quotes from this report: Surveys conducted in the United States and Europe reveal that many citizens do not have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and concepts, nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process. In addition, belief in pseudoscience (an indicator of scientific illiteracy) seems to be widespread among Americans and Europeans. Studies also suggest that not many Americans are technologically literate. Scientific literacy in the United States (and in other countries) is fairly low. (Scientific literacy is defined here as knowing basic facts and concepts about science and having an understanding of how science works.) The majority of the general public knows a little but not a lot about science. For example, most Americans know that the Earth travels around the Sun and that light travels faster than sound. However, few know the definition of a molecule. In addition, most Americans are unfamiliar with the scientific process. ----------------- Another section in this report mentioned that most of the public get their (limited) knowledge of science from television, rarely from printed material. And a footnote about pseudoscience says: [33] Various researchers have demonstrated that a continuing parade of para-normal depictions in movies and psychic mediums on television distort some viewers' perception of reality and thus fuel such beliefs (Sparks, Nelson, and Campbell 1997; and Nisbet et al. 2002). BillK From scerir at libero.it Mon Jan 29 20:51:14 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:51:14 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> after much work now I know that self aggrandizement = autoincensamento :-) PS: 'Which Science Fiction Writer Are You?' http://paulkienitz.net/skiffy.html From scerir at libero.it Mon Jan 29 21:06:05 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:06:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] if you draw a circle ... References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20070128112500.041dfe00@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <000f01c743e9$4ada7420$abbf1f97@archimede> Buckminster Fuller (quoted by Natasha): > 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. This may also have a deeper meaning. I remember that Alfred Wehrl ('General properties of entropy', Rev. Mod. Phys., 50, 221-260 (1978)) wrote several examples (not necessarily quantum, also classical) in which the entropy of two correlated/entangled subsystems (ie one inside a circle, or a surface, and one outside) is less (sometimes the entropy is even negative) than the entropy of the two separated subsystems (after the so called 'tracing out'). From jonkc at att.net Mon Jan 29 21:38:32 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:38:32 -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> Message-ID: <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> "Keith Henson" > Read the Wikipedia article. I prefer to read Science and Nature. > If you build 100 identical cells and charge them exactly the same way some > fraction of them, typically about half, will exhibit anomalous behavior > in generating heat. BULLSHIT! If that were true I'd be reading about it in Science or Nature, not The National Enquirer or "scientific journals" or equal repute. > Why do so do it and not others? That's the maddening question besides > what is actually happening. It's really not that difficult to understand, crappy and confused experimenters produce crappy and confusing data. > You can reliably generate excess heat in some subset of cells. MEGA- BULLSHIT!! John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 29 21:45:45 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:45:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> 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> Message-ID: <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> Well, John, I hope you survive to the Singularity so that I can have the pleasure of observing your reaction when you are proved wrong about all this, by AI's that are better able to conduct these experiments than us humans ;-) Of course, by then I may have rewired myself so as to eliminate such trivial pleasures from my psyche!! -- Ben G On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:38 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Keith Henson" > >> Read the Wikipedia article. > > I prefer to read Science and Nature. > >> If you build 100 identical cells and charge them exactly the same >> way some >> fraction of them, typically about half, will exhibit anomalous >> behavior >> in generating heat. > > BULLSHIT! If that were true I'd be reading about it in Science or > Nature, > not The National Enquirer or "scientific journals" or equal repute. > >> Why do so do it and not others? That's the maddening question >> besides >> what is actually happening. > > It's really not that difficult to understand, crappy and confused > experimenters > produce crappy and confusing data. > >> You can reliably generate excess heat in some subset of cells. > > MEGA- BULLSHIT!! > > 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 Mon Jan 29 21:51:25 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:51:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento In-Reply-To: <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129154753.022288e8@satx.rr.com> At 09:51 PM 1/29/2007 +0100, Serafino wrote: >'Which Science Fiction Writer Are You?' >http://paulkienitz.net/skiffy.html Not quite to my surprise (since I gave him the Nobel Prize for Literature in THE JUDAS MANDALA) I'm... Kurt Vonnegut (Damn! If only I was Charlie Stross. I wonder who Charlie Stross is?) Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 29 22:08:29 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:08:29 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129154753.022288e8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129154753.022288e8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129160451.02285730@satx.rr.com> At 03:51 PM 1/29/2007 -0600, I answered: > >'Which Science Fiction Writer Are You?' > >http://paulkienitz.net/skiffy.html > >Kurt Vonnegut But wait! On alternate days, my answers would be slightly different, and then I turn out to be Isaac Asimov Well, I suppose, sort of--mixing sf and science writing, more leftish than Heinlein... Damien Broderick From jonkc at att.net Mon Jan 29 22:21:41 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:21:41 -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> Message-ID: <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > Well, John, I hope you survive to the Singularity Thanks, the same to you. Good luck, we'll need it. > so that I can have the pleasure of observing > your reaction when you are proved wrong So we will have to wait until the Singularity happens to find out if cold fusion is true, but the trouble is, by then nobody will give a hoot in hell about it one way or the other. But it's strange, it really is strange that scientists can detect the photons from stars 13 billion light years away but they can't detect that heat. They can detect microwaves from the Big Bang itself but they can't detect that heat. They can detect neutrinos that have traveled through the entire Earth and even managed to weigh the ghostly things but they can't detect that heat. They can detect a tiny shift in orientation of a gyroscope caused by a incredibly subtle effect in General Relativity called "frame dragging", a shift in angle the same as a human hair as seen from a quarter of a mile away, but those same scientists just aren't smart enough to detect that stupid idiotic heat. Meanwhile Joe Blow the truck driver has easily detected the heat in his makeshift rig that cost $400 that he cobbled together in his garage. I DON'T BUY IT! John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 29 22:31:44 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:31:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <4F813EB2-F642-47FB-867C-D6480F290A47@goertzel.org> > > So we will have to wait until the Singularity happens to find out > if cold > fusion is true, Well, I'm not saying that we will have to wait till the Singularity to find out. Maybe a breakthrough will happen sooner ... but if not, I am pretty confident that AI's with the capacity to run more experiments faster than us and analyze the results better will be able to resolve a bunch of scientific issues that have vexed us stupid humans for a long time... From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 29 22:41:25 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:41:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129160451.02285730@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129154753.022288e8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129160451.02285730@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129163719.021f6a88@satx.rr.com> At 04:08 PM 1/29/2007 -0600, I answered: > > >'Which Science Fiction Writer Are You?' > > >http://paulkienitz.net/skiffy.html > > > >Kurt Vonnegut > >But wait! On alternate days, my answers would be slightly different, >and then I turn out to be > >Isaac Asimov But wait some more! Equally plausible choices finally take me to the man I really regard as my sf icon: Samuel R. "Chip" Delany I'm starting to think this polyvalent test needs several iterations with the results averaged. Damien Broderick [yes I do know it's in jest. sort of] From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 22:49:05 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:49:05 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> Message-ID: On 1/29/07, scerir wrote: > after much work now I know that > self aggrandizement = autoincensamento > :-) > Google translates autoincensamento as self-praise. I guess that gets the meaning over, but it loses a lot in translation. :) self-aggrandizement (with a hyphen) is a much richer term in English than mere self-praise. One useful trick for translating foreign words, (as well as just feeding the word itself into Google translate) is to look the word up in its own language dictionary, then feed the whole dictionary definition into Google translate. e.g. self-aggrandizement produces: The act or practice of enhancing or exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation. With a bit of hacking about to get a reasonable translation, Google says in Italian: Un'azione da aumentare o esagera la vostra propria importanza, autorit?, o reputazione. But there's more........ In Damien's case you have to remember that he comes from an Australian cultural background, where mocking the self-important is traditional. If you have ever seen Barry Humphries' comedy portrayal on tv of the Australian Cultural Attache, Sir Les Patterson, you would understand. :) BillK From aiguy at comcast.net Mon Jan 29 22:53:48 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:53:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> 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> Message-ID: <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> It may be possible that impurities in the test materials or water are what makes the experiment irreproducible. One would expect the more professional the lab the purer the ingredients so the tighter tolerances on the materials could be preventing the reaction from taking place. Don't forget it only takes a small amount of impurities in substances to act as a catalyst or alter their behavior at the atomic level. Also the reaction may be probabilistic in the sense that the impurities enabling the reaction are so dilute as to make the results occur for a very short time and the impurities then may be rendered inert by the reaction itself. And then again if the government did discover this, and the potential for misuse as a weapon was too great, do any of us doubt that they would do their best to suppress the technology from prevent the research into from being made credible. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John K Clark Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:22 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings "Ben Goertzel" > Well, John, I hope you survive to the Singularity Thanks, the same to you. Good luck, we'll need it. > so that I can have the pleasure of observing your reaction when you > are proved wrong So we will have to wait until the Singularity happens to find out if cold fusion is true, but the trouble is, by then nobody will give a hoot in hell about it one way or the other. But it's strange, it really is strange that scientists can detect the photons from stars 13 billion light years away but they can't detect that heat. They can detect microwaves from the Big Bang itself but they can't detect that heat. They can detect neutrinos that have traveled through the entire Earth and even managed to weigh the ghostly things but they can't detect that heat. They can detect a tiny shift in orientation of a gyroscope caused by a incredibly subtle effect in General Relativity called "frame dragging", a shift in angle the same as a human hair as seen from a quarter of a mile away, but those same scientists just aren't smart enough to detect that stupid idiotic heat. Meanwhile Joe Blow the truck driver has easily detected the heat in his makeshift rig that cost $400 that he cobbled together in his garage. I DON'T BUY IT! John K Clark _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jan 29 23:10:40 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:10:40 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129163719.021f6a88@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129154753.022288e8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129160451.02285730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129163719.021f6a88@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45BE7EF0.20307@pobox.com> I came out as John Brunner. (I don't think I've ever read him.) -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 29 23:14:06 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:14:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento In-Reply-To: <45BE7EF0.20307@pobox.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129154753.022288e8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129160451.02285730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129163719.021f6a88@satx.rr.com> <45BE7EF0.20307@pobox.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701291514s1f6fd7b7qbac1d5ccec58fd5f@mail.gmail.com> I enjoyed his books "Stand on Zanzibar" and "The Sheep Look Up" many years ago... On 1/29/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > I came out as John Brunner. (I don't think I've ever read him.) > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From ben at goertzel.org Mon Jan 29 23:16:02 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:16:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0701291514s1f6fd7b7qbac1d5ccec58fd5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129154753.022288e8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129160451.02285730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070129163719.021f6a88@satx.rr.com> <45BE7EF0.20307@pobox.com> <3cf171fe0701291514s1f6fd7b7qbac1d5ccec58fd5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0701291516x71b65b6av83ed19f2bfcc05aa@mail.gmail.com> And, I came out as Arthur C. Clarke ;-) On 1/29/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > I enjoyed his books "Stand on Zanzibar" and "The Sheep Look Up" many > years ago... > > On 1/29/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > I came out as John Brunner. (I don't think I've ever read him.) > > > > -- > > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From jonkc at att.net Mon Jan 29 23:17:43 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:17:43 -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$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <009001c743fb$c27f8da0$da064e0c@MyComputer> "Gary Miller" > It may be possible that impurities in the test materials or water are what > makes the experiment irreproducible. Then it was a miracle, Extropians do not deal in miracles. > And then again if the government did discover this, and the potential for > misuse as a weapon was too great [.] And Elvis is deep within Area 51 turning water into gasoline. This is the Extropian list people, it has a long and noble history, get real. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jan 29 23:36:50 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:36:50 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com> At 05:53 PM 1/29/2007 -0500, Gary Miller wrote: >It may be possible that impurities in the test materials or water are what >makes the experiment irreproducible. > >One would expect the more professional the lab the purer the ingredients so >the tighter tolerances on the materials could be preventing the reaction >from taking place. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this debacle is that Martin Fleischmann was one of the world's leading experts in precisely the relevant discipline, electrochemistry, with a renowned lab in the UK. He was not a truck driver working on his toy chemistry kit in his garage, he was an elected fellow of the Royal Society at the top of his profession. This does not mean he is right, obviously; plenty of notable specialists have made foolish errors, but been so bullheaded they stuck by them in the face of scathing critique. But it does mean he's not a homebrew nitwit. However, neither he nor Pons was a nuclear physicist and, since the only apparent source of their anomalous heat output was some unknown nuclear reaction, they made blunders in their attempts to track down this source, and the term "cold fusion" only made matters worse. Had the discovery been made in 1890, and they and everyone else had fashionably conjectured that the effect was caused by Pasteurian bacteria in the water, it might have been dubbed "cold buggery" and all the disease experts would have been mocking them instead. These peripheral mistakes help explain why the response of the nuclear physics community was so hostile, and absurdly quickly led to their pariah status. But the record also clearly shows that in the last nearly two decades, solid credentialed scientists have indeed replicated the early results (intermittently, and after long learning curves). It's not difficult to find their names. I, too, had assumed for years that this was all nonsense and credulous crap, until I read Beaudette's book and started tracking the history. I'm now quite sure that it's not MEGA-BULLSHIT, although it still might turn out to be mistaken. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jan 30 00:18:10 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:18:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com> <000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129181101.02203dc0@satx.rr.com> At 10:49 PM 1/29/2007 +0000, BillK (a UKsian) wrote: >In Damien's case you have to remember that he comes from an Australian >cultural background, where mocking the self-important is traditional. Spot-on. Even though I've been steeped in US literature and popular culture all my life, it wasn't until I'd been living here for a couple of years that I finally cottoned on to how extremely *alien* this mind-set seems to be to most USians. I don't mean that Americans are pompously self-important, but rather that a certain *thrusting* quality is not merely acceptable but almost mandatory if you want to get anywhere and be taken seriously. And somehow this is combined with a sort of politeness beside which Aussie self-mocking irony looks oafish and bumpkinish (whereas we tend to regard brandished self-confidence as a sign of the con artist, and carefully cover our wallets). Damien Broderick From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 00:34:11 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:34:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Just to throw another opinion in here... I have come to appreciate "gts" as a tag representing an almost religious dogma on a subject I don't seem to care enough about to fully understand. I kept trying for a while, but eventually gave up. Once in a while I scan for new bits, but keywords like "frequentist" and quotations of other people's ideas usually has me scrolling to the next thought. to gts's point, if you (we/whatever) are not interested, just don't post. If one is at a party and there is a niche conversation in one part of the room, it's not difficult to become involved in another. On 1/29/07, gts wrote: > > > Do you have a point? > > I was going to ask you the same question, Jef. > > If you have no real interest in the philosophy of probability then I > wonder why you keep interjecting with your uninformed comments. > > Stu > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > 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 msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 00:50:31 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:50:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <7D0E03F6-251B-4A0B-9F23-D47268FBE4F4@goertzel.org> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <003701c7430a$99a30480$77084e0c@MyComputer> <7D0E03F6-251B-4A0B-9F23-D47268FBE4F4@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <62c14240701291650o3c33613cp8c7c3bfeb3f4329d@mail.gmail.com> On 1/28/07, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > Early on the exponential growth curve of progress in a given area, > progress can seem slow... > > By your argument, AGI should also be abandoned due to lack of prior > progress... > > On Jan 28, 2007, at 1:31 PM, John K Clark wrote: > By the same argument, trying to convince John K Clark of anything other than his own current beliefs should also be abandoned... (all in good fun, again I take a shot) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 01:11:38 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:11:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:34:11 -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > I have come to appreciate "gts" as a tag representing an almost religious > dogma on a subject I don't seem to care enough about to fully understand. Thanks, but I have been objecting here when I see others taking one or another philosophical theory as dogma, so I think it's funny that my arguments are seen by you as dogma. I have tried very hard not to tie my beliefs to one or another philosophical interpretation, hoping to find some more general interpretation. Currently there exist huge gaps between and amongst the five different philosophical theories that purport to explain the foundations of Kolmogorov's formal probability axioms. They are 1) the classical, 2) the logical, 3) the subjective, 4) the frequentist, and 5) the propensity theories. Each of these theories has drawbacks, and each also something to offer. None of them seems to capture the full meaning of probability theory. So a LOT of academic work still needs to be done in the philosophical foundations of probability theory! And this subject is made all the more important by the philosophical problems posed by QM. I'd like to see my intelligent friends here on extropy-chat address the problem. I'm not encouraged when I see them sitting in the peanut gallery throwing spit-wads at the questions... sigh... But I do appreciate the spirit of your comment. :) -gts From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Jan 30 01:55:58 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:55:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento Message-ID: <32097277.407791170122158692.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Ben Goertzel wrote: >And, I came out as Arthur C. Clarke ;-) Me, too! PJ From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jan 30 02:02:56 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:02:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Mike Dougherty wrote: > I have come to appreciate "gts" as a tag representing > an almost religious dogma on a subject I don't seem > to care enough about to fully understand.? I kept trying > for a while, but eventually gave up.? Once in a while I > scan for new bits, but keywords like "frequentist" and > quotations of other people's ideas usually has me > scrolling to the next thought. > to gts's point, if you (we/whatever) are not interested, > just don't post.? If one is at a party and there is a niche > conversation in one part of the room, it's not difficult > to become involved in another. ON the contrary, I think the subject of probability is very interesting and relevant to the extropy list. It's about how we make certain decisions under uncertain circumstances, with the other side of the coin being the understanding that a deterministic but uncertain world is a world of great and unknowable promise. There is great beauty in principles such as the Principle of Indifference and of course, Bayes Theorem, and there is great practical value in an understanding of probability as a stepping stone to greater rationality. You responded as if Gordon's retort reflected the concerns I expressed. Suggest you reread my post. - Jef From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Jan 30 02:18:41 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:18:41 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento In-Reply-To: <32097277.407791170122158692.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <32097277.407791170122158692.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <4957.163.1.72.81.1170123521.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> pjmanney wrote: > Ben Goertzel wrote: >>And, I came out as Arthur C. Clarke ;-) > > Me, too! Me, too! Quick, lets form an Overmind! :-) -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 02:42:39 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:12:39 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento In-Reply-To: <4957.163.1.72.81.1170123521.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <32097277.407791170122158692.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <4957.163.1.72.81.1170123521.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <710b78fc0701291842k6c3a2561w951dc95ab36982e7@mail.gmail.com> On 30/01/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > pjmanney wrote: > > Ben Goertzel wrote: > >>And, I came out as Arthur C. Clarke ;-) > > > > Me, too! > > Me, too! Quick, lets form an Overmind! :-) > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University No I am the real Arthur C. Clarke! But if there's still space in the Overmind... Emlyn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 30 02:51:21 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:51:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <009001c743fb$c27f8da0$da064e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070129200421.038088a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:17 PM 1/29/2007 -0500, you wrote: >"Gary Miller" > > > It may be possible that impurities in the test materials or water are what > > makes the experiment irreproducible. It's reproducible, it just isn't consistently reproducible. And far worse, there is no accepted or even plausible theory. It is so random in when it turns on that you think of cosmic ray hits. Maybe it is muon related and *does* take cosmic rays. Or perhaps it is the result of a few free quarks. Google charge niobium spheres and read a few articles. Physics as we know it does not permit fractional charges. >Then it was a miracle, Extropians do not deal in miracles. Uncontrolled variables are not miracles. You really should look into the early history (1930s) of semiconductors. Did you ever hear the horror story about Joy detergent? I can tell you one myself about some bad epoxy destroying millions of dollars worth of parts in the early 70s. > > And then again if the government did discover this, and the potential for > > misuse as a weapon was too great [.] From what I know about it, and I have followed this business for a long time, even if they do figure out the physics, it may be useless for anything but pocket warmers. >And Elvis is deep within Area 51 turning water into gasoline. An amusing fact is that the deuterium in a gallon of water has about the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline. >This is the >Extropian list people, it has a long and noble history, get real. I was here almost from the beginning. I don't think that being totally dogmatic about something is a extropian virtue. How about carbon nanotubes? Do you have a fixed opinion about how strong they will turn out to be? Keith Henson From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Jan 30 02:48:02 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:48:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento Message-ID: <29693895.406621170125282530.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >pjmanney wrote: >> Ben Goertzel wrote: >>>And, I came out as Arthur C. Clarke ;-) >> >> Me, too! Anders wrote: >Me, too! Quick, lets form an Overmind! :-) Now THAT would be an interesting Overmind, at least to me! Between us, we cover a nice bit of territory, with compatible overlaps. I'm game if you are... ;-) PJ From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Tue Jan 30 03:09:45 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:09:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] an(other) Aussie visits Texas References: <33331318.277641170049525169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <652BEE47-B138-469F-826E-E0CB94A04505@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <45BEB6F9.3030004@thomasoliver.net> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:57 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: > > >>Please note that Star Wars was also, in the 1980's, the popular name >>for a proposed US missile defense system proposed by President >>Reagan, Edward Teller, and others. >>[...] >> > >It was a lot more than lasers, [...] > >Cheers, > >J. Andrew Rogers > > Yes! The Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) disrupted the Mutuallly Assured Destruction doctrine that created that standing wave we called the Cold War. As a shield, not a threat, it gave the U.S. the moral high ground. Reagan even offered the "technology" to Gorbachev! The "Evil empire" characterization capped the demoralization of the Soviets. SDI seemed more a geo-political game in which our leader maintained the initiative with powerful words and principled strategy -- and ultimately won -- perhaps prolonging the existence of the human race. Was there more to this game than just the opposition principle? Why did it seem so much more effective and expansive in scope than our present foreign relations game? -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 30 04:02:36 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:02:36 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com> 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> Message-ID: <2AB76122-5AC5-4338-8631-9D219938A129@goertzel.org> I agree with Damien. I have just read Baudette's book and followed up some of the references, and I am 90% confident there is a real phenomenon underlying the claims of "cold fusion". I don't presume to know what the explanation underlying the phenomenon is, but the pattern of data does not look like bullshit, let along mega-bullshit... I find it amusing that so much attention and $$ is going into things like string theory (which tries to unify quantum theory and gravitation), which are fascinating but quite far-removed from empirical reality, when there are empirical puzzles like cold fusion about, which have nontrivial probability of necessitating drastic revisions in the theories that string theory and its ilk are trying to unify... -- Ben On Jan 29, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 05:53 PM 1/29/2007 -0500, Gary Miller wrote: > >> It may be possible that impurities in the test materials or water >> are what >> makes the experiment irreproducible. >> >> One would expect the more professional the lab the purer the >> ingredients so >> the tighter tolerances on the materials could be preventing the >> reaction >> from taking place. > > Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this debacle is that Martin > Fleischmann was one of the world's leading experts in precisely the > relevant discipline, electrochemistry, with a renowned lab in the UK. > He was not a truck driver working on his toy chemistry kit in his > garage, he was an elected fellow of the Royal Society at the top of > his profession. This does not mean he is right, obviously; plenty of > notable specialists have made foolish errors, but been so bullheaded > they stuck by them in the face of scathing critique. But it does mean > he's not a homebrew nitwit. > > However, neither he nor Pons was a nuclear physicist and, since the > only apparent source of their anomalous heat output was some unknown > nuclear reaction, they made blunders in their attempts to track down > this source, and the term "cold fusion" only made matters worse. Had > the discovery been made in 1890, and they and everyone else had > fashionably conjectured that the effect was caused by Pasteurian > bacteria in the water, it might have been dubbed "cold buggery" and > all the disease experts would have been mocking them instead. These > peripheral mistakes help explain why the response of the nuclear > physics community was so hostile, and absurdly quickly led to their > pariah status. But the record also clearly shows that in the last > nearly two decades, solid credentialed scientists have indeed > replicated the early results (intermittently, and after long learning > curves). It's not difficult to find their names. > > I, too, had assumed for years that this was all nonsense and > credulous crap, until I read Beaudette's book and started tracking > the history. I'm now quite sure that it's not MEGA-BULLSHIT, although > it still might turn out to be mistaken. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 30 04:04:19 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:04:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento In-Reply-To: <29693895.406621170125282530.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <29693895.406621170125282530.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <0991A4F0-361B-498C-920F-28BA199AE137@goertzel.org> yeah... it's an appealing thought, actually ... I'm not sure how my wife would like it, but ... what the hey ... ;-) On Jan 29, 2007, at 9:48 PM, pjmanney wrote: >> pjmanney wrote: >>> Ben Goertzel wrote: >>>> And, I came out as Arthur C. Clarke ;-) >>> >>> Me, too! > > Anders wrote: >> Me, too! Quick, lets form an Overmind! :-) > > Now THAT would be an interesting Overmind, at least to me! Between > us, we cover a nice bit of territory, with compatible overlaps. > I'm game if you are... ;-) > > PJ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Tue Jan 30 03:22:27 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:22:27 -0700 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> <003701c7430a$99a30480$77084e0c@MyComputer> <7D0E03F6-251B-4A0B-9F23-D47268FBE4F4@goertzel.org> <62c14240701291650o3c33613cp8c7c3bfeb3f4329d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45BEB9F3.3030400@thomasoliver.net> Mike Dougherty wrote: > > > By the same argument, trying to convince John K Clark of anything > other than his own current beliefs should also be abandoned... > > (all in good fun, again I take a shot) As long as we don't abandon critical expression. Whose mind is open to knowing, the believer's or the skeptic's? -- Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 04:17:11 2007 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:17:11 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] newsvine: "Sure, make me a cyborg" In-Reply-To: <45BE35E2.8000507@mac.com> References: <3642969c0701282234p573141d6g59fa8e3dc8619e63@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20070129100644.04c302d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <45BE35E2.8000507@mac.com> Message-ID: <3642969c0701292017t7cd35c9vdefb5030eaaf57f4@mail.gmail.com> > > How do you see the distinction between cyborg and transhuman? Do you > > think the terms are interchangeable? for me, I think any future cyborgs will simply be a classifiable subset of 'human', much how the 'transhumans' of today are very much just normal humans with a fetish for futurism & self-improvement. a little clearer: future posthumans will consider themselves 'human'. from their perspective it will be us today who will be considered subhuman, much as -we- now look at neanderthals, early hunter-gatherers and modern day cannibals. terms like 'inhumane' and 'oh, the humanity!' speak to a greater internal concept of human than just unmodified sapien. back to the point: cyborgs are humans. if it starts human, you can do whatever you want to it; it's still human. maybe if you mess with the development process, much like the ukrainian(?) girl raised by dogs, you might end up with something sub(super)human. but if we restrict cybernetic changes to therapeutic use only until the age of majority then that person can be considered human, no matter what they end up modifying themselves into later. humanity is a self-referencing set of memories and shared memes developed within a social environmental framework; it doesn't matter worth a damn what substrate the self-referential engine is running on, as long as it's grounded in that initial embryonic stage of personal development that we all share: it's called childhood. you can grow up and wire yourself backwards as much as you like but if you ever soiled yourself, sucked on a teat and went batshit at the sight of icecream then you're a done deal as a human. > They are not intechageable. One is about whether the body has all > organic parts or not. this is the 'vanilla sapien' interpretation of humanity; see above. In short, I think this is hogwash. 'Human' means one thing, 'Homo Sapien' another, and 'Cyborg' is a term that negates ones' membership in neither. > The other is about the goals, views and ideals of > the brain/mind realized in that body. Conceivably a person could even > be tranferred fully into an artificial body or uploaded without being in > the least interested in or a proponent of transhumanism. i think we're on the same page here, with my proviso that you have to be a 'person' first, and that there's some formative experiences (that I've no doubt defined poorly) required to gain membership into the 'personhood' club. I think It'd be fair to say that if you're a cyborg you're a transhumanist, even if you don't associate with that term yourself; if enough people call you a fairy, you're a fairy. Yes, it smacks of racism, but until you can prove that cyborgs-as-a-group find transhumanist-as-a-label offensive/derogatory you're going to have to live with it. I'm not particularly fond of the term 'transhumanist', but I'm a futurist and a singulatarian, so in the interim I'm just going to have to deal with it :-) From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 30 03:42:05 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:42:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070129223617.038049a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:02 PM 1/29/2007 -0800, Jef wrote: >Mike Dougherty wrote: snip > Once in a while I > > scan for new bits, but keywords like "frequentist" and > > quotations of other people's ideas usually has me > > scrolling to the next thought. snip >ON the contrary, I think the subject of probability is very interesting >and relevant to the extropy list. One thing I didn't see, but perhaps I was not reading every post, is something both probable and infrequent. Consider the San Francisco earth quake of 1906. Keith Henson PS. I was there for the 1989 quake. Definite memory of getting out of the building I was in and seeing this tree going swish, swish as it moved back and forth several feet. From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Tue Jan 30 04:39:38 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:39:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Remember when we used to have/be parents In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701292017t7cd35c9vdefb5030eaaf57f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701282234p573141d6g59fa8e3dc8619e63@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20070129100644.04c302d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <45BE35E2.8000507@mac.com> <3642969c0701292017t7cd35c9vdefb5030eaaf57f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3c7947e2a0cec1d6c267e31c7ab22702@sympatico.ca> On Jan 29, 2007, at 11:17 PM, kevin.osborne wrote: > snip > it doesn't matter worth a damn what substrate the > self-referential engine is running on, as long as it's grounded in > that initial embryonic stage of personal development that we all > share: it's called childhood. you can grow up and wire yourself > backwards as much as you like but if you ever soiled yourself, sucked > on a teat and went batshit at the sight of icecream then you're a done > deal as a human. > Given a silicon substrate, minimal (zero?) cost to knowledge transfer and an economic system based on abundance, will "parenting" or "childhood" exist in practical terms? As a proud and happy parent I would miss it. Of course, not having to go to the family reunion where Aunt Beryl pinches your cheek would have it's advantages. From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 30 02:56:40 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:56:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070129171355.023cade0@satx.rr.com> References: <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070129215407.03a65118@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:36 PM 1/29/2007 -0600, Damien wrote: I followed this business, reading the actual research papers. There were a lot of serious people involved, including some from Stanford at a time it was close to where I lived. >I, too, had assumed for years that this was all nonsense and >credulous crap, until I read Beaudette's book and started tracking >the history. I'm now quite sure that it's not MEGA-BULLSHIT, although >it still might turn out to be mistaken. I agree with you. Keith Henson From amara at amara.com Tue Jan 30 05:54:23 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:54:23 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant autoincensamento Message-ID: Damien: >I'm starting to think this polyvalent test needs several iterations >with the results averaged. You too? http://asymptotia.com/2007/01/27/so-who-are-you/#comment-25853 I thought I just needed to clear my cache! Amara From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 06:53:34 2007 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:53:34 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Remember when we used to have/be parents In-Reply-To: <3c7947e2a0cec1d6c267e31c7ab22702@sympatico.ca> References: <3642969c0701282234p573141d6g59fa8e3dc8619e63@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20070129100644.04c302d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <45BE35E2.8000507@mac.com> <3642969c0701292017t7cd35c9vdefb5030eaaf57f4@mail.gmail.com> <3c7947e2a0cec1d6c267e31c7ab22702@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <3642969c0701292253x6664bb5m91a136596af5690a@mail.gmail.com> > Given a silicon substrate, minimal (zero?) cost to knowledge transfer > and an economic system based on abundance, will "parenting" or > "childhood" exist in practical terms? As a proud and happy parent I > would miss it. Of course, not having to go to the family reunion where > Aunt Beryl pinches your cheek would have it's advantages. I guess there will always be a stage when you can't fend for yourself, and your parent-net will need to provide your infant silicon-sluice-slices with nourishment and care, even if what we're talking about in a post-upload world is stable energy inputs, shielded data access and attack-vector cancellation. and I'm not sure it wouldn't be worse to have Aunt Beryl clog my comm lines with purple/lavender/doily bit-patterns than to be able to just kick her in the shins and run away :-) From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 30 08:54:55 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:54:55 -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> Message-ID: <003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > Martin Fleischmann was one of the world's leading experts [.] Expert in what, writing incompetent papers? > he was an elected fellow of the Royal Society And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that happened BEFORE he had a brain fart and wrote that moronic paper. And I'll also bet you that not a day passes that the Royal Society is embarrassed to have such a man as a member. Damien let me ask you a question, if it were not pleasant to believe in this crap would you believe it? No need to respond I already know the answer, of course you wouldn't. > solid credentialed scientists have indeed replicated the early results BULLSHIT! Extra virgin, triple distilled, premium grade, BULLSHIT. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jan 30 09:41:40 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:41:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070129200421.038088a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$d9f32810$da064e0c@MyComputer> <0D622747-2CE8-449E-B50C-B32610822AB7@goertzel.org> <005701c743f3$dfc82be0$da064e0c@MyComputer> <008501c743f8$58045da0$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> <5.1.0.14.0.20070129200421.038088a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070130094140.GF21677@leitl.org> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 09:51:21PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > It's reproducible, it just isn't consistently reproducible. And far worse, If there's a particular device which generates excess heat (giant output is reported on occasion, including destruction of the apparatus) that lab would become scientific Mecca. Even if you can't reproduce the experiment elsewhere, if you have a working system it can be verified by visitors on-site. Are there any? > there is no accepted or even plausible theory. It is so random in when it That's not a problem, as long as there's an observable effect. Even if it's occasional, and takes magic experiments which are hard to reproduce. A few of these world-wide would be enough. Are there any? > turns on that you think of cosmic ray hits. Maybe it is muon related and > *does* take cosmic rays. Or perhaps it is the result of a few free > quarks. Google charge niobium spheres and read a few articles. Physics as > we know it does not permit fractional charges. The only information I see on this is from 1978-1981. No further work seems to have been done since. Maybe that's one for JIR. > From what I know about it, and I have followed this business for a long > time, even if they do figure out the physics, it may be useless for > anything but pocket warmers. I wouldn't call 1000% excess heat (many claims, and easy enough to measure even in a garage) just useful for pocket warmers. -- 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 amara at amara.com Tue Jan 30 11:39:47 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:39:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings Message-ID: John K Clark jonkc at att.net : >So we will have to wait until the Singularity happens to find out if >cold fusion is true, but the trouble is, by then nobody will give a hoot >in hell about it one way or the other. But it's strange, it really is >strange that scientists can detect the photons from stars 13 billion >light years away but they can't detect that heat. They can detect >microwaves from the Big Bang itself but they can't detect that heat. >They can detect neutrinos that have traveled through the entire Earth >and even managed to weigh the ghostly things but they can't detect that >heat. They can detect a tiny shift in orientation of a gyroscope caused >by a incredibly subtle effect in General Relativity called "frame >dragging", a shift in angle the same as a human hair as seen from a >quarter of a mile away, but those same scientists just >aren't smart enough to detect ... ... the quantity of water or the abundances of noble gases like helium, neon, and argon in the planet underneath their own feet. Those same scientists aren't even sure how Earth got its water in the first place. Odd isn't it? 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 scerir at libero.it Tue Jan 30 13:33:04 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:33:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] blatant self aggrandizement References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070127174114.02508fb0@satx.rr.com><000701c743e7$3b7b9650$abbf1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <000c01c74473$2c6f7be0$deb91f97@archimede> BillK Google translates autoincensamento as self-praise. I guess that gets the meaning over, but it loses a lot in translation. :) Self-aggrandizement (with a hyphen) is a much richer term in English than mere self-praise. # We also have 'automagnificazione', but it is a bit obsolete. s. In the "Memoirs" (1562) Benvenuto Cellini writes "shining light . . . seen over my shadow . . . and it appears to the greatest advantage when the grass is moist with dew." He attributed his early morning 'halo' to "the wondrous ways of providence toward me." http://www.atoptics.co.uk/droplets/glory.htm [picture above is not a Cellini's 'halo', it rather represents a 'glory'] From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 30 14:19:21 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:19:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reputation was Education monopolies (2) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070130091913.03ab7430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:08 PM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote: >On 1/27/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> >wrote: >>I am amused. > >Happy to provide entertainment, please leave a few $ in the cup by the >door as you leave. > >>I don't know about Merkle and Freitas, but _one_ of the reasons Drexler's >>writing has few flaws is that he had a bunch of editors and fact >>checkers. (My wife was among them for _Nanosystems_) > >Interesting. I would be curious to know whether the flaws were numerical, >logical, or referential. I imagine all three, but my wife was involved in checking the references. >And I agree with your assertion. Being wise enough to have internal >review and incorporate worthwhile comments is a productive strategy. I >cannot help however being struck by the fact of how accurate Nanosystems >was/is given that it was written 15+ years ago. So hats off to the >reviewers (however unknown). Nanosystems was a rewrite of Drexler's PhD thesis from MIT. People such as Marvin Minsky were on his committee. As to the reviewers, look in the acknowledgements. There are more than a page of them listed. I know about half of them. >>Of course being humble enough to know you are not perfect and *need* others >>to look at your work before publication is in itself a darn good reason for >>high reputation. > >Agreed. When one is knee deep in a problem (as I currently am >with mechanisms of aging) it is useful to have external inputs. I don't know who you have as reviewers of your work, but I know that if I were in that area I would want de Grey. As a suggestion, most rodents live about two years. Naked mole rats live 20 or more. It would be very interesting to compare the genome of rats, mice and mole rats for clues as to why mole rats live so long. Keith From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 14:17:21 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:17:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:02:56 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > ON the contrary, I think the subject of probability is very interesting > and relevant to the extropy list. It's about how we make certain > decisions under uncertain circumstances Exactly! Probability theory has relevance to almost area of life, to say nothing of its extreme relevance to extropian topics like AI, decision theory, the philosophy of science, epistemology, and QM. My interest in this subject stems from my reading of Karl Popper (_Conjectures and Refutations_ in the Spring of last year and, more recently, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_). These two dense tomes inspired me to study this subject more intensively. I highly recommend Donald Gillies book _Philosophical Theories of Probability_. Gillies is a Professor of Philosophy of Science and Mathematics at King's College, London. He earned his Phd under the supervision of Popper's student Imre Lakatos. His book was a turning point for me; many of the ideas and arguments I've presented here come from Gillies' excellent survey of the subject. Professor Gillies also wrote a book about AI and the scientific method, currently on my must-read list. Currently I am reading _Subjective Probability: The Real Thing_ by the late professor Richard Jeffrey of Princeton. Professor Jeffery spent his entire life studying probability and decision theory. In the end he was an enthusiastic supporter of the radical subjectivist philosophy of Bruno de Finneti, or so I gather so far from reading his book. I think it's important that people realize this field of knowledge is essentially brand new, in its modern form newer even than quantum mechanics (the classical probability theory of Laplace is essentially dead). Andrei Kolmogorov formalized the axioms of probability theory in 1933, barely 70 years ago, and since around that time we've seen a proliferation of competing interpretations, each purporting to explain the meanings behind the symbols. Much work still needs to be done. -gts From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 30 14:39:59 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:39:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion In-Reply-To: <003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><003601c743ed$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> Message-ID: John, It would be more interesting if you would read "EXCESS HEAT" and respond to the particular research results and published research papers described there. Simply spouting invective without reference to the actual data about the situation -- which is what you have been doing -- is not very informative to anyone. It does have some entertainment value, but that wears thin after a while, at least from my point of view.... It seems pretty clear that the excess heat generation labeled "cold fusion" is a real phenomenon without explanation in terms of known physics. It has been replicated in a bunch of different labs now by a bunch of different people using a bunch of different specific experimental methodologies. One reason progress has been slow is that experiments can take months to run, and the success depends sensitively on the particular batch of ingredients used, for reasons that are not currently well understood. Another reason progress has been slow is that the scientific community has, by and large, reacted irrationally in its rejection of the results. Pons and Fleischmann made some political errors in their initial presentations of their results, but this does not justify the extent to which their actual data has been ignored. It is not very surprising that progress has been so slow since funding for the area has been so scant. Progress in hot nuclear fusion has also been slow for a long time, in spite of vastly greater funding. However, the fact that their research is gradually being replicated and rehabilitated is an indication that the scientific community **does** functon rationally, albeit sometimes slowly and erratically and with bouts of collective irrationality. As for the pleasant-ness of thinking about cold fusion and related topics, I have a mixture of pleasure and displeasure in reaction to the cold fusion phenomenon, but that is not the point. [The displeasure comes from the fact that it makes the terrible incompleteness of our current understanding of physics all to clear. Which makes it seem extremely likely that shortly after a superhuman AI is created, it will understand new physics that we do not. Which makes the notion of guaranteeing the benevolence of superhuman AI's even more farfetched than it would be otherwise. If the universe were a well-understood machine, then the Friendly AI problem would be tough enough; given that it's apparently a quite poorly understood machine, that means it's even tougher...] -- Ben G On Jan 30, 2007, at 3:54 AM, John K Clark wrote: > "Damien Broderick" > >> Martin Fleischmann was one of the world's leading experts [.] > > Expert in what, writing incompetent papers? > >> he was an elected fellow of the Royal Society > > And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that happened BEFORE he had a > brain fart > and wrote that moronic paper. And I'll also bet you that not a day > passes > that the Royal Society is embarrassed to have such a man as a member. > > Damien let me ask you a question, if it were not pleasant to > believe in this > crap would you believe it? No need to respond I already know the > answer, of > course you wouldn't. > >> solid credentialed scientists have indeed replicated the early >> results > > BULLSHIT! Extra virgin, triple distilled, premium grade, BULLSHIT. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 30 15:26:21 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:26:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion In-Reply-To: References: <003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$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> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070130102224.03ab2ac8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:39 AM 1/30/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: snip (stuff I completely agree with) >As for the pleasant-ness of thinking about cold fusion and >related topics, I have a mixture of pleasure and displeasure >in reaction to the cold fusion phenomenon, but that is not the >point. [The displeasure comes from the fact that it makes the >terrible incompleteness of our current understanding of physics >all to clear. Which makes it seem extremely likely that shortly after >a superhuman AI is created, it will understand new physics that >we do not. Which makes the notion of guaranteeing the >benevolence of superhuman AI's even more farfetched than it >would be otherwise. If the universe were a well-understood >machine, then the Friendly AI problem would be tough enough; >given that it's apparently a quite poorly understood machine, >that means it's even tougher...] That's a really interesting take in the incompleteness of physics. It certainly never occured to me. Keith From scerir at libero.it Tue Jan 30 16:00:54 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:00:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold Fusion References: <003601c7444c$61ee02e0$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><003601c743ed$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$5c0a4e0c@MyComputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20070130102224.03ab2ac8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <000d01c74487$d2cef240$30be1f97@archimede> Keith Henson > That's a really interesting take > in the incompleteness of physics. > It certainly never occured to me. There are several sources of incompleteness. "Only the theory decides what one can observe.[1]" is perhaps the main source. But sometimes the theory cannot even decide what one can observe, and one needs a superselection rule, or a new principle, or whatever.[2]. Not to mention Anthropic Principles, etc. [1] in W. Heisenberg, 'Der Teil und das Ganze', R. Piper & Co., Munich (1969). [2] see 'Pauli principle', which seems to be physical (but, at the same time, the theory says that wavefunctions are *not* physical entities). From rbarreira at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 15:58:02 2007 From: rbarreira at gmail.com (Ricardo Barreira) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:58:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reputation was Education monopolies (2) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070130091913.03ab7430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070130091913.03ab7430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5df798750701300758j54d51288vd3445ab4c8d87718@mail.gmail.com> > As a suggestion, most rodents live about two years. Naked mole rats live > 20 or more. It would be very interesting to compare the genome of rats, > mice and mole rats for clues as to why mole rats live so long. I'm quite ignorant in terms of biology, but (as an initial approach) would it be necessary to go to the genetic level? From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 17:01:47 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:01:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > There is great beauty in principles such as the Principle of > Indifference... Here is another example of where this "beautiful principle" fails miserably: This is from a text on decision theory [1], in which the author rejects the principle as a decision-making rule on two grounds: 1) it is illogical and philosophically untenable (if we have no reason to expect one outcome more than another then we have no reason to assume they are equiprobable, either) and, perhaps more critically, 2) the principle can lead to disaster... A decision must be made between action 1 (A1) and action 2 (A2). One of two scenarios will unfold (S1 or S2). We are ignorant of the probabilities of S1 and S2, so we invoke the principle of indifference (also called the principle of insufficient reason, as in this text) and assign each scenario a probability of 50%. As below, the expected utility (EU) of A1 is therefore 100, calculated as (.5 * -100) + (.5 * 300) = 100. The expected utility of A2 is 20, similarly calculated. S1 S2 EU ---------------------------------- A1| -100 300 100 A2| 10 30 20 We choose A1 as this action offers the highest expected utility. The author writes, "The principle of insufficient reason could lead us to disaster... If, unbeknownst to us, the probability of S1 were, say, .9, the expected utility of A1 would be significantly less than that of A2. In a life or death situation the principle could be totally disastrous." It's beautiful, though. :-) -gts 1. Choices: An Introduction to Decision Theory By Michael D. Resnik http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0816614407&id=4genrKNUkKcC&pg=RA2-PA35&lpg=RA2-PA35&ots=wE4Uxk7bqE&dq=principle+of+insufficient+reason&sig=PsMUy3fqcMgFha8Kyx2HLaC-EA8 From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 30 17:09:57 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:09:57 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] newsvine: "Sure, make me a cyborg" In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701292017t7cd35c9vdefb5030eaaf57f4@mail.gmail.com > References: <3642969c0701282234p573141d6g59fa8e3dc8619e63@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20070129100644.04c302d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <45BE35E2.8000507@mac.com> <3642969c0701292017t7cd35c9vdefb5030eaaf57f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070130105827.047bf7c0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:17 PM 1/29/2007, Kevin wrote: Natasha wrote: > > > How do you see the distinction between cyborg and transhuman? Do you > > > think the terms are interchangeable? >for me, I think any future cyborgs will simply be a classifiable >subset of 'human', much how the 'transhumans' of today are very much >just normal humans with a fetish for futurism & self-improvement. I think you mean transhumanists, not transhumans. There are the very early signs of transhumans today and many probably don't have a fetish for futurism. I am saying this because the early transhumans may very well be those who have overcome sever damage to their physiology and have had to be augment to remain alive and/or functioning. Donna Hathaway writes about cyborgs, but I truly think she is referring to transhumans but did not use that term out of lack of information/knowledge or because cyborg was more widely known. But a cyborg is a cybernetic organism does not have "humane" characteristics, perhaps quite different from a transhuman which is a evolutionary transitional stage. Samantha wrote: > > They are not intechageable. One is about whether the body has all > > organic parts or not. >this is the 'vanilla sapien' interpretation of humanity; see above. In >short, I think this is hogwash. 'Human' means one thing, 'Homo Sapien' >another, and 'Cyborg' is a term that negates ones' membership in >neither. ?? > > The other is about the goals, views and ideals of > > the brain/mind realized in that body. Conceivably a person could even > > be tranferred fully into an artificial body or uploaded without being in > > the least interested in or a proponent of transhumanism. Of course. A transhuman is not necessary a transhumanist. >I think It'd be fair to say that if you're a cyborg you're a >transhumanist, I don't think so. Best wishes, 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 Tue Jan 30 17:13:46 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:13:46 -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> Message-ID: <002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > It seems pretty clear that the excess heat generation labeled > "cold fusion" is a real phenomenon BULLSHIT! > without explanation in terms of known physics. Not true, there is a very clear explanation, incompetent experimenters. > One reason progress has been slow is that experiments > can take months to run, and the success depends sensitively > on the particular batch of ingredients used And that my friend is a classic example of a BULLSHIT excuse. If there is anything unique about this experiment it's how simple it is, anybody should be able to reproduce it with a minimal budget. The result is that Joe Blow the truck driver sees the heat with no problem, but when world class experiments try it they see nothing. The field has not moved an inch in 17 years and there is no reason to think it will do any better in the next 17. A scientist would be a fool to spend any more time with it, there are better things to do. > Another reason progress has been slow is that the scientific community > has, by and large, reacted irrationally in its rejection of the results. Yea, there's this big (yawn) conspiracy. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 30 17:24:32 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:24:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold fusion In-Reply-To: <002701c74492$05be4ca0$df064e0c@MyComputer> 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> Message-ID: <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org> > > >> One reason progress has been slow is that experiments >> can take months to run, and the success depends sensitively >> on the particular batch of ingredients used > > And that my friend is a classic example of a BULLSHIT excuse. If > there is > anything unique about this experiment it's how simple it is, > anybody should > be able to reproduce it with a minimal budget. The result is that > Joe Blow > the truck driver sees the heat with no problem, but when world class > experiments try it they see nothing. The field has not moved an > inch in 17 > years and there is no reason to think it will do any better in the > next 17. > A scientist would be a fool to spend any more time with it, there > are better > things to do. It's actually not true that the field has not moved an inch in 17 years, there have been plenty of new results as Beaudette's book reports, and also new results since the publication of that book. You can look this stuff up if you care to. The argument that the experiments are extremely simple have been refuted repeatedly. The experiments do not require extremely expensive machinery but are not simple for a variety of reasons, described in detail in Beaudette's book and in the scientific literature. > >> Another reason progress has been slow is that the scientific >> community >> has, by and large, reacted irrationally in its rejection of the >> results. > > Yea, there's this big (yawn) conspiracy. No, I don't see evidence of a big conspiracy in the suppression of cold fusion research. The anti-cold-fusion folks just seem to be a bunch of busy and arrogant academic scientists, individually doing what they think is right, but actually making mistakes on this issue, like the fallible humans we all are.... Anyway, your dogmatism and unwillingness to look at the actual scientific data, make this conversation kind of pointless. Let's call it quits. I will be happy to resume the discussion if and when you educate yourself adequately on the topic to discuss it intelligently .-> -- Ben G From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Jan 30 18:03:55 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:03:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reputation was Education monopolies (3) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070130130346.03ad2378@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:58 PM 1/30/2007 +0100, you wrote: > > As a suggestion, most rodents live about two years. Naked mole rats live > > 20 or more. It would be very interesting to compare the genome of rats, > > mice and mole rats for clues as to why mole rats live so long. > >I'm quite ignorant in terms of biology, but (as an initial approach) >would it be necessary to go to the genetic level? It isn't initial approach time and has not been for decades. There really isn't much else you can do. The maximum life span of species and individuals ultimately depends on their genes. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jan 30 18:46:22 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:46:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com><62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: gts wrote: >[Jef wrote:] >> There is great beauty in principles such as the Principle of >> Indifference... > > Here is another example of where this "beautiful principle" fails > miserably: Gordon, principles cannot "fail miserably". People can fail miserably when they try to apply principles out of context. Principles are statements describing some regularity observable in our interactions with "reality". The principle of indifference is beautiful (to some of us) because of its elegance; it's an extremely simple statement of extremely fundamental applicability to knowing what we can know. The principle of indifference says simply and powerfully that equivalent states of information yield equivalent probabilities. It is a special case of the principle of maximum entropy which is even more elegant. It seems to me that where you're "failing miserably" is in not realizing the inherent subjectivity (context dependency) of any such statement. You persist in demanding the "right answer" without understanding that you haven't fully specified the question. Q: Do you think there can be "information" without a subjective (necessarily context-limited) observer? Think deeply about this and curtains may fall. You've shown that you're having trouble understanding the difference between probability and likelihood; that you haven't grasped the essential idea behind Bertrand's "paradox" that there's a continuum of views but only a single actuality; that a string of 11111111111s can easily be random; that there's a strong argument for thinking of "randomness" in more general terms as the uncertainty of a necessarily subjective (context-limited) observer; and how this all relates to the concept of entropy. All this information is out there on the web and in books, along with plenty of misunderstanding and controversy. It would please me, and perhaps a few others who care about this stuff, if you would speak from your own point of view, rather than in the pompous and pedantic style of presenting pieces of the work of others, claiming to play devils advocate in order to share these "great mysteries". One can't tell what point of view you might hold, if any, and this limits the effectiveness of discussion. Onward! - Jef From pgptag at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 19:05:16 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:05:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Seminar and debate on transhumanism, Lausanne Message-ID: <470a3c520701301105p203039f2vaf737f2eea736159@mail.gmail.com> I gave a seminar and participated in a public debate on transhumanism at the University of Lausanne on January 24, 2007, with an audience of about 300 persons of mixed backgrounds. Reports, some pictures and link to video: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/seminar_and_debate_on_transhumanism_lausanne/ From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jan 30 19:16:15 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:16:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cold fusion In-Reply-To: <9B6F2939-30AC-48C6-96FF-B48C7C234BAA@goertzel.org> 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> Message-ID: <45BF997F.2000109@pobox.com> This is unworthy of you, John. Ben Goertzel AND Damien Broderick AND Eliezer Yudkowsky, have all told you point-blank that there exists interesting scientific evidence and progress for anomalous heat generation aka "cold fusion", supported by at least a hundred different scientists working on it. What kind of scam do you suppose would convince all three of us? Do we simply have holes in our brains? I, in particular, don't give the slightest damn about anomalous heat generation as a technology. Is it smart? Does it relate in any way to cognition? No. So the only reason I care about it is as a potential case example of bad science - which it is, one way or the other, regardless of who turns out to be right. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Jan 30 19:21:09 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:21:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Seminar and debate on transhumanism, Lausanne Message-ID: <380-22007123019219144@M2W002.mail2web.com> Original Message: ----------------- From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 pgptag at gmail.com Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:05:16 +0100 To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, Transumanisti at yahoogroups.com Subject: [extropy-chat] Seminar and debate on transhumanism, Lausanne I gave a seminar and participated in a public debate on transhumanism at the University of Lausanne on January 24, 2007, with an audience of about 300 persons of mixed backgrounds. Reports, some pictures and link to video: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/seminar_and_debate_on_transhumanism_la usanne/ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 20:17:08 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:17:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <236319.37280.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > Like you I'm inclined to look for something better > than frequentism, but > not necessarily for the reasons you're giving. You > may be right for the > wrong reasons. :) If you really want something better than why are you defending the frequentist Axiom of Randomness tooth and nail? > Von Mises (main developer of the frequency theory) > was first and foremost > an *empiricist*. As such there is something > refreshing and honest about > his approach to probability theory, at least to an > empirically minded > person like me. I have no problem with Von Mises. He was right, he just didn't know why. > > To put it another way they borrow a > > tool from calculus called a limit and try to > define a > > probability by it and it fails. > > But as Von Mises argued, other sciences also make > use of infinities in > their mathematical abstractions. Why should the > science of probability be > prohibited from using them? Yes but they use actual mathematical limits that display strong convergence which are functions that approach their limits in a monotonic fashion. What Von Mises measured was something called weak convergence and is the result of the Central Limit Theorem and the Law of Large Numbers which both essentially describe the same thing: That if you measure the means of enough samples drawn at random from ANY possible distribution, the means you measure will themselves approximate a normal distribution. The mean, or mean of the means, of this normal distribution of means will be very close to the mean of the parent distibution REGARDLESS of its shape. > Though it is true the measured frequency fluctuates, > sometimes diverging > and sometimes converging, the divergences decrease > in magnitude as n > increases, as the measured frequency converges > over-all on the > probability. This can be demonstrated both > mathematically and empirically. Actually it all depends on how you define magnitude. For example with coin flips, the divergence *relative* to the number of flips decreases. The *absolute* divergence however INCREASES. If you flip a coin 4 times times you may get 1 heads and 3 tails. That is a *relative* divergence of 0.25 from the expectation value of 0.5. However it is a divergence by only a single head (the absolute divergence) from the expectation of getting equal numbers of heads and tails. Now if you take the coin and flip it 10000 times you can quite realistically obtain 5100 heads and 4900 tails. The *relative* divergence of this from the expectation is only .5100-.5000= .01. The *absolute* divergence however is 100 more heads than you expected. The *absolute* divergence from normalcy rises as the square root of the number of flips. It is only when you divide this divergence by the number of flips, i.e. SQRT(N)/N that you get a convergence at all. > The question for philosophers of probability is not > whether frequencies > converge as Mises observed. It is rather *why* they > converge. Subjective > bayesians have no answer to this question any more > than do the > frequentists. Propensity theorists however do have > an answer. I just told you: The Central Limit Theorem and the Law of Large Numbers are both alternate descriptions of the same underlying phenomenon that is essentially a law of nature. That why they converge although the convergence itself is only *relative* to the ever increasing number of trials. 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 21:12:55 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:12:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:46:22 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > Gordon, principles cannot "fail miserably". People can fail miserably > when they try to apply principles out of context. There you go again. :) The context in this case was a simple problem in decision theory. *The principle failed*, so the author wisely urged his readers to reject it, throwing it out as a possible tool for making sound decisions. > The principle of indifference is beautiful (to some of us) because of > its elegance; I invite you to consider another possibility: your so-called "beautiful principle" is in fact nothing more than a heuristic device; a mental shortcut that often seems to work but, like all heuristic devices, sometimes does not work. That is, it is not a valid logical principle. It does not belong in that pristine chapel of Logical Truth to which you have so undeservedly promoted it. It looks "beautiful" because it works most of the time, and because we humans are so vain and dazzled by our own mental machinations that we sometimes fall into traps: in this case we wrongly imagine this mental shortcut called the PI to be some kind of neo-platonic "truth", as if it were an analytic statement in the same category with "1+1=2". But it's not! It's really just a wild-assed conjecture in the face of complete ignorance about the true state of nature. It could aptly be named the "Your Guess Is As Good As Mine So What The Hell, Let's Just Flip A Coin And Pray" Principle. :) More later... -gts From jonkc at att.net Tue Jan 30 21:36:16 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:36:16 -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> Message-ID: <001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" > Ben Goertzel AND Damien Broderick AND Eliezer Yudkowsky, >have all told you point-blank that there exists interesting >scientific evidence and progress for anomalous heat generation >aka "cold fusion" Evidence obtained by people I've never heard of refereed by someone I've never head of reproduced by someone I've never heard of and published (or worse just put on the web) in a journal I've never heard of. And evidence I might add that leads precisely nowhere. Year after year these people do their silly little experiments, but they might as well have kept their hands in their pockets for 17 years because nothing has advanced a nanometer in that time. Why do you suppose that is? > Do we simply have holes in our brains? With all due respect Eliezer that possibility strikes me as far more likely than that the editors of Science and Nature and Physical Review Letters have all had holes in their brains for the last 17 years. None of the top physics journals publish cold fusion crap, you have to go to the sort of rag that also publishes ESP stuff. Why do you suppose that is? > This is unworthy of you, John. No it is not. I make no apology for calling a spade a spade, and I'm not very good at euphemisms. Cold fusion is BULLSHIT. John K Clark From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue Jan 30 21:39:38 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:39:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Seminar and debate on transhumanism, Lausanne In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701301105p203039f2vaf737f2eea736159@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520701301105p203039f2vaf737f2eea736159@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36810.72.236.103.36.1170193178.squirrel@main.nc.us> > I gave a seminar and participated in a public debate on transhumanism > at the University of Lausanne on January 24, 2007, with an audience of > about 300 persons of mixed backgrounds. > :) I particularly enjoy your comment about wearing glasses. I've used hip replacements in much the same way, only of course nobody can *see* that. But most folks know somebody who has had such a treatment. And they don't consider those people to be any different than human, though plainly improved/repaired/enhanced from their "natural" broken condition. It is by little morsels and little steps that we move into understanding and appreciation. Regards, MB From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 23:51:23 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:51:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <253094.12185.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- gts wrote: > > There is great beauty in principles such as the > Principle of > > Indifference... > > Here is another example of where this "beautiful > principle" fails > miserably: > > This is from a text on decision theory [1], in which > the author rejects > the principle as a decision-making rule on two > grounds: > > 1) it is illogical and philosophically untenable (if > we have no reason to > expect one outcome more than another then we have no > reason to assume they > are equiprobable, either) > > and, perhaps more critically, > > 2) the principle can lead to disaster... > > A decision must be made between action 1 (A1) and > action 2 (A2). One of > two scenarios will unfold (S1 or S2). We are > ignorant of the probabilities > of S1 and S2, so we invoke the principle of > indifference (also called the > principle of insufficient reason, as in this text) > and assign each > scenario a probability of 50%. > > As below, the expected utility (EU) of A1 is > therefore 100, calculated as > (.5 * -100) + (.5 * 300) = 100. The expected utility > of A2 is 20, > similarly calculated. > > S1 S2 EU > ---------------------------------- > A1| -100 300 100 > A2| 10 30 20 > > We choose A1 as this action offers the highest > expected utility. > > The author writes, "The principle of insufficient > reason could lead us to > disaster... If, unbeknownst to us, the probability > of S1 were, say, .9, > the expected utility of A1 would be significantly > less than that of A2. In > a life or death situation the principle could be > totally disastrous." The principle of indifference is not a subtitute for real information on the probability of the outcomes, IF any such information is available. If you do have any sort of informative prior, you are better off using it than an uninformative prior every time. That is almost the first thing they teach you in Bayesian reasoning, use whatever data you have, and only when you have zero data do you use the principle of insufficient reason. That Bayes law cannot predict outcomes reliably in an informational vaccuum is not at all a weakness of the principle. It just tells you the importance of information in making decisions. How would a frequentist decide between A1 and A2 in your above game of life and death? By dying a million times until they had a good estimate of the probability of S1? As a matter of fact if the probability of S1 is .9 then the entire game has an overall expected utility of -48. Which means it is a game not worth playing no matter what option you choose. 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jan 31 00:17:37 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:17:37 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <001c01c744b6$b482dc00$6e074e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070123163620.02269730@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070126162355.022cd960@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070128234250.03a64c70@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <003601c743ed$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> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com> At 04:36 PM 1/30/2007 -0500, John K Clark wrote: > > Do we simply have holes in our brains? > >With all due respect Eliezer that possibility strikes me as far more likely >than that the editors of Science and Nature and Physical Review Letters have >all had holes in their brains for the last 17 years. John has a worthwhile point, of course, and it's one Hal Finney has argued persuasively here in the past. It's very risky to bet on an outsider rather than the established consensus of scientists familiar with a field's theories and data. But that's a heuristic, not the Word of God. It's a working guide to minimize time wasting. It also has its costs, one of them being the stifling of "heretical" opinion, another being the premature dismissal of important new results. Have there never been any instances where a few researchers found utterly astonishing and counter-intuitive results that led eventually to acceptance and glory, but only after years of cries of BULLSHIT!? Why, yes, and I keep quoting one: ================= http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm 1982 Australian physicians Robin Warren and Barry Marshall first identify the link between Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and ulcers, concluding that the bacterium, not stress or diet, causes ulcers. The medical community is slow to accept their findings. ... 1995 Data show that about 75 percent of ulcer patients are still treated primarily with antisecretory medications, and only 5 percent receive antibiotic therapy. Consumer research by the American Digestive Health Foundation finds that nearly 90 percent of ulcer sufferers are unaware that H. pylori causes ulcers. In fact, nearly 90 percent of those with ulcers blame their ulcers on stress or worry, and 60 percent point to diet. 1996 The Food and Drug Administration approves the first antibiotic for treatment of ulcer disease. ======================= That's swifter than any likely acceptance of the catalyzed heat claims, but it shows that expert opinion is fallible, and sometimes plain, pig-headed, GET THAT DAMNED TELESCOPE OUT OF MY FACE wrong. Damien Broderick From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jan 31 00:50:52 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:50:52 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com> 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> Message-ID: <3109.86.130.31.144.1170204652.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> "Do we simply have holes in our brains?" After having read too much www.overcomingbias.com I'm ready to say that it is true for all of us. It looks like Scott Adams was right, we are all idiots some part of the time. Another good heuristic comes from my friend H?kan: "the fraction of idiots in any two groups is likely to be equal unless there is some factor concentrating them" (the Andersson Idiocy Equipartion Principle). This doesn't help us resolve the cold fusion quarrel, but maybe we can cool it down a bit by assuming there is a sizeable amount of incompetence involved on both sides. It would be useful to actually get some data on the frequency of extraordinary claims evoking bullshit responses that later turns out to be true versus the claims that don't pan out. We have an example bias of the successes, but tend to forget the failures. It might also be interesting to look for common traits of the claimants of the later verified claims that could help predict whether they are right. Maybe polymaths are more likely than average researchers to make such claims, but only people with a solid grounding in *one* field are right (or vice versa). -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 01:59:06 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:59:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701301759t7d71e1b7g209fbffcaf84b738@mail.gmail.com> Sorry to suggest anything on your behalf. To be honest I took the opportunity afforded by the ambiguous "Do you have a point?" to go a different direction. I also did not mean to inflect that this thread (or the number of similar threads) are not interesting or relevant in general - more that they are interesting and relevant in such excruciating detail that it is difficult (for me, for example) to have any hope of entering the conversation. I liken this to my own experience at a party where my interests are often too 'heady' for the majority of the guests. In that situation, I prefer that the host leave us alone rather than try to draw us back to the casual (shallow) group conversation. Perhaps my tone was less than gracious in suggesting that a niche topic is easily ignored on a discussion list without sacrificing either the quality of that topic or the list. On 1/29/07, Gts wrote: But I do appreciate the spirit of your comment. :) Thanks. I often take flak for what I say (or what people hear/read) rather than what I meant. On 1/29/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > ON the contrary, I think the subject of probability is very interesting and relevant to the extropy list. It's about how we make certain decisions under uncertain circumstances, with the other side of the coin being the understanding that a deterministic but uncertain world is a world of great and unknowable promise. There is great beauty in principles such as the Principle of Indifference and of course, Bayes Theorem, and there is great practical value in an understanding of probability as a stepping stone to greater rationality. > > You responded as if Gordon's retort reflected the concerns I expressed. Suggest you reread my post. > From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 04:05:12 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:05:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Random Thought Experiments (was Coin Flip Paradox) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <988084.91450.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jef Allbright wrote: > The principle of indifference says simply and > powerfully that equivalent > states of information yield equivalent > probabilities. It is a special > case of the principle of maximum entropy which is > even more elegant. Yes. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Boltzman's Equipartition Theorem may be thought of as the Principle of Indifference as applied to the internal energy of a classical system. > Q: Do you think there can be "information" without a > subjective > (necessarily context-limited) observer? Think deeply > about this and > curtains may fall. This is so important a point that I will herein describe some thought experiments to demonstrate it. Hopefully these will shed some light on the questions being addressed in this debate. Experiment 1: Random versus Hidden Variables or "What's in your wallet?" Lets say that Gordon and Jef run into each other and decide to play a simple gambling game. The rules are simple. Whoever has the less amount of money in their wallet wins all of the money in the others wallet. Now is the amount of money in a wallet deterministic or random? Well from Jef's POV the amount of money in Gordon's wallet is a random variable but the amount of money in his own is definitively non-random (he put it there so he knows). From Gordon's POV the exact opposite is true, Gordon knows whats in his own wallet but the amount in Jef's wallet is a random variable. Thus the very same objective reality can be completely predetermined to one player and be completely random to the other. Bonus question: Is this a "fair" game? What are the players expectation values? Is it a wise gamble for either to play? Experiment 2: Maxwell's Demon or "Is entropy a state of mind?" Imagine you have a sealed two chamber container of gas in thermodynamic equilibrium. Futhermore imagine that there is a partition between the two chambers that has a tiny hole in it. Now because the gas is in equilibrium, it is in a state of maximum entropy. The gas cannot be used to do any work. Now imagine that the great sorceror Maxwell summons a tiny little demon the size of the hole in the partition between the chambers. The tiny demon is then instructed to act like molecular goalie or a bouncer at a ritzy nightclub. His job is to stand in the little doorway between the two chambers and selectively block molecules of gas he sees coming. When he sees a fast moving molecule of gas coming from right hand chamber toward his doorway, he is to step aside and let the molecule pass. Conversely if he sees a slowly moving molecule coming toward the doorway from the left chamber, he is to step aside and let the molecule pass. In all other cases he is stand steadfastly in the doorway and let the molecule bounce off of him. As you can clearly see what will happen is that the left hand chamber will soon come to be filled with fast moving molecules and will become rather hot. The right hand chamber will similarly be filled with slow molecules and will become cold. Thus, by expending a the merest pittance of energy (lets say you buy the demon lunch) to gather *information* about the speed of individual molecules, you have stored up a lot of energy by setting up hot and cold resevoirs that can then be used to perform useful work. Thus even objective physical realities (i.e. entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics) can be hacked by sufficient *information*. Bonus Questions: Do ion channels in living cells mimic Maxwell's Demon? Could MNT be used to construct the mechanical equivalent of Maxwell's Demon? Experiment 3: Chaos Theory or "Methodical Madness" Kolmogrov's complexity theorem states that a sequence is random if there is no algorithm that can generate the sequence that is shorter than the sequence itself. Yet chaos theory is finding that many very simple deterministic equations display such seemingly unpredicatable behavior that if you didn't know the function to begin with, you would assume they are random. They even pass all the statistical tests for randomness. To demonstrate this, examine the following two 64 bit strings: A. 1010000100100100001011101010010010010010001110001001111111101000 B. 0101101110110101111111100111101110010011001111000100001100010001 One of them is completely random even to myself. I generated it by literally flipping a coin 64 times and recording the heads as 1s and the tails as 0s. The other one is completely deterministic - not pseudorandom! I generated it by using a seemingly novel function that I will unimaginatively call the Coin Function that I designed just to prove my point. It is simply the first 64 values given by the Coin Function for the natural numbers. (ie. 1 to 64) The thought experiment is for you to try to figure out which is which. Bonus questions: Does me telling you that the output of the Coin Function is completely predetermined make it any less random from your POV? What are the 65th, 66th, and 67th values of the function? 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jan 31 04:25:10 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:25:10 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Random Thought Experiments (was Coin Flip Paradox) In-Reply-To: <988084.91450.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <988084.91450.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45C01A26.1050901@pobox.com> The Avantguardian wrote: > > Bonus question: Is this a "fair" game? What are the > players expectation values? Is it a wise gamble for > either to play? Assuming identical utility functions, obviously not, if they're Bayesians enough to apply Aumann's Agreement Theorem! -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jonkc at att.net Wed Jan 31 06:28:09 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:28:09 -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$6e074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070130180555.0261aa88@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> Damien, I admit it took longer than it should have for the link between Helicobacter pylori and ulcers to become common knowledge, and it's not something the scientific community should be especially proud of; but you can't compare it to cold fusion. Pro and anti Helicobacter pylori articles appeared in scientific journals, real journals not pretend ones. Today you can't even find anti cold fusion articles, the issue is dead, it would be like a anti Viking article, or expecting to see in Nature a discussion about who Tom Cruise is likely to date after his next divorce. It just amazes me how such otherwise intelligent people can be so incredibly gullible. Some jackass you've never heard of posts some data on the net claiming to have found heat from cold fusion and that sequence of ASCII characters gets everybody all excited. The only thing it tells me is that the man had enough money to buy a computer. No, I'm wrong, it doesn't even tell me that, it could be a homeless man with BO who just wandered into a public library and posted some shit. Sometimes the crackpot even manages to get his ASCII sequence printed on a dead tree, but his article is never cited by real scientists, and even the "journal" he writes in is never cited. John K Clark From kevin.osborne at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 07:45:55 2007 From: kevin.osborne at gmail.com (kevin.osborne) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:45:55 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? Message-ID: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> tell me if I'm wrong but: - is transhumanism just another refuge for norm-rejecting fringe-dwellers seeking yet another hippie/indie/alternative refuge from their non-conformity? - is it just another 'salvation' cult for ex-fundamental religious nutjobs who've found that atheism, too, might provide them with eternal life in the kingdom of (upload-)heaven? - is all the 'existential risk' and 'friendly a.i' gibbering just yet another doomsday cult squealing 'the end is nigh!' in their wearable billboards? - is the brain-mod and bod-mod culture just yet another terminus for the neurotic masses who buy 'self-help' and 'lose body fat!' be-someone-better books? - are we all being seduced by the new 'second coming' a.k.a 'the singularity' where all the true believers will be saved and transcend to eden? - in a sub-culture that on the surface espouses rationalism, are we in fact in danger of blindly drinking the fanboy kool-aid of a fantasy future that may in fact be far beyond our means as a collective? - are we simply feeding the coffers of 'faction' SF-writers and providing unwarranted attention to run-of-the-mill nutjobs who just happen to sell future shock as their 'chicken little' axe-to-grind? feel free to go off like a firecracker, I'm clearly trolling. as a wannabe-sceptic with a history of gulliblity I'm trying to sound out some querulous(possibly pernicious) points that inquire as to the nudity of our little extropian emperor... From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 08:46:53 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:46:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <24347.74713.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Maybe... but what's the alternative? Claiming to worship a carpenter who died over two millenia ago in order to conform? The very same carpenter whose words are conveniently ignored by those who would use forgiveness as an excuse to do evil? Are you a sceptic enough to debunk your own existence, Mr. Osborne? --- "kevin.osborne" wrote: > tell me if I'm wrong but: > > - is transhumanism just another refuge for > norm-rejecting > fringe-dwellers seeking yet another > hippie/indie/alternative refuge > from their non-conformity? > - is it just another 'salvation' cult for > ex-fundamental religious > nutjobs who've found that atheism, too, might > provide them with > eternal life in the kingdom of (upload-)heaven? > - is all the 'existential risk' and 'friendly a.i' > gibbering just yet > another doomsday cult squealing 'the end is nigh!' > in their wearable > billboards? > - is the brain-mod and bod-mod culture just yet > another terminus for > the neurotic masses who buy 'self-help' and 'lose > body fat!' > be-someone-better books? > - are we all being seduced by the new 'second > coming' a.k.a 'the > singularity' where all the true believers will be > saved and transcend > to eden? > - in a sub-culture that on the surface espouses > rationalism, are we in > fact in danger of blindly drinking the fanboy > kool-aid of a fantasy > future that may in fact be far beyond our means as a > collective? > - are we simply feeding the coffers of 'faction' > SF-writers and > providing unwarranted attention to run-of-the-mill > nutjobs who just > happen to sell future shock as their 'chicken > little' axe-to-grind? > > feel free to go off like a firecracker, I'm clearly > trolling. as a > wannabe-sceptic with a history of gulliblity I'm > trying to sound out > some querulous(possibly pernicious) points that > inquire as to the > nudity of our little extropian emperor... > _______________________________________________ > 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited From pgptag at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 09:05:58 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:05:58 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520701310105j25caeddbw702fa1782bfa430a@mail.gmail.com> Hi Kevin, note that you frames these statements with negative wording, but each one can also be worded positively. Example (same order - I just filtered out the noise): A movement of free thinkers. A realistic option for an afterlife, compatible with scientific knowledge. Calling the world's attention on potential risks. Options to improve our bodies and minds. Transcendence enabled by science and technology. Desire for a better world. Taking the best ideas on the future seriously. Yes - all these things are elements of transhumanism. G. On 1/31/07, kevin.osborne wrote: > tell me if I'm wrong but: > > - is transhumanism just another refuge for norm-rejecting > fringe-dwellers seeking yet another hippie/indie/alternative refuge > from their non-conformity? > - is it just another 'salvation' cult for ex-fundamental religious > nutjobs who've found that atheism, too, might provide them with > eternal life in the kingdom of (upload-)heaven? > - is all the 'existential risk' and 'friendly a.i' gibbering just yet > another doomsday cult squealing 'the end is nigh!' in their wearable > billboards? > - is the brain-mod and bod-mod culture just yet another terminus for > the neurotic masses who buy 'self-help' and 'lose body fat!' > be-someone-better books? > - are we all being seduced by the new 'second coming' a.k.a 'the > singularity' where all the true believers will be saved and transcend > to eden? > - in a sub-culture that on the surface espouses rationalism, are we in > fact in danger of blindly drinking the fanboy kool-aid of a fantasy > future that may in fact be far beyond our means as a collective? > - are we simply feeding the coffers of 'faction' SF-writers and > providing unwarranted attention to run-of-the-mill nutjobs who just > happen to sell future shock as their 'chicken little' axe-to-grind? > > feel free to go off like a firecracker, I'm clearly trolling. as a > wannabe-sceptic with a history of gulliblity I'm trying to sound out > some querulous(possibly pernicious) points that inquire as to the > nudity of our little extropian emperor... > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From rpicone at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 09:07:20 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:07:20 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1/30/07, kevin.osborne wrote: > > tell me if I'm wrong but: > > - is transhumanism just another refuge for norm-rejecting > fringe-dwellers seeking yet another hippie/indie/alternative refuge > from their non-conformity? Well, it's definitely not a majority, conformist view if you want to qualify it that way, but it does seem to have a definite logical basis that movements that you seem to want to liken to it seem to be largely missing. Any non-religious philosophy for the most part isn't going to be accepted by the norm, but I still think society can benefit from all sorts of philosophies. - is it just another 'salvation' cult for ex-fundamental religious > nutjobs who've found that atheism, too, might provide them with > eternal life in the kingdom of (upload-)heaven? Well, I've yet to hear of an ex-fundamentalist transhumanist, and I'm not sure I've ever met one that likens a much longer life span to the concept of heaven in any way, it doesn't go along very much with the idea. We'll still be human in some way, we'll still exist in the real world, it will still be possible to "kill" us, and as such we'll still have problems and conflict, I don't see people's future consciousnesses, even in fairly extreme scenarios, being much different than their present ones in ways that really matter (i.e. ignoring speed, data throughput and medium). The only kind of salvation I could see myself finding in transhumanism could be fixed by a few painkillers right now. - is all the 'existential risk' and 'friendly a.i' gibbering just yet > another doomsday cult squealing 'the end is nigh!' in their wearable > billboards? Well, that's one way to look at it, but once again I'd differentiate an end based upon logical arguments of cause and effect and potential widespread technologies from an end based upon a rough guess of the likelihood of the realization of someone's vision from thousands of years ago. - is the brain-mod and bod-mod culture just yet another terminus for > the neurotic masses who buy 'self-help' and 'lose body fat!' > be-someone-better books? Well, the current body mod community probably doesn't have much overlap with those people. I can't really imagine that guy with the pierced nose lip and eyebrow sitting around all day watching Oprah. Regardless, I'm sure there's plenty of overlap here with transhumanists in general, but is that really such a bad thing?... I mean the intention of reading self help books is good even if they're asking someone else to teach them to be better rather than focusing on more personal goals. Or do you have a problem with the idea of anyone ever being less than their potential? - are we all being seduced by the new 'second coming' a.k.a 'the > singularity' where all the true believers will be saved and transcend > to eden? Well, really I don't see any advantage for the singularity's "true believers" being believers in this case, hell, as they're far more likely to be early adopters to various technologies, the true believers are more likely to take the brunt of a financial beating that mainstream society likely wouldn't suffer from when they adopt similar technologies. So again, I see a definite distinction, getting a definite advantage from the belief itself and lending itself to elitism would be the only real problem with the above scenario I can think of.... Neither of which seem to be problems here. - in a sub-culture that on the surface espouses rationalism, are we in > fact in danger of blindly drinking the fanboy kool-aid of a fantasy > future that may in fact be far beyond our means as a collective? I think most people accept that discussion is almost completely speculation and most admit they have very little certainty how things will happen, only that certain concepts, the ones that seem to make the most definite sense to them, seem to be likely. -> are we simply feeding the coffers of 'faction' SF-writers and > > providing unwarranted attention to run-of-the-mill nutjobs who just > > happen to sell future shock as their 'chicken little' axe-to-grind? Probably, to some extent but I highly doubt that there's enough buying power here to make much of anyone rich... And nutjobs need to eat too... > feel free to go off like a firecracker, I'm clearly trolling. as a > > wannabe-sceptic with a history of gulliblity I'm trying to sound out > > some querulous(possibly pernicious) points that inquire as to the > > nudity of our little extropian emperor... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeykottalam at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 09:04:51 2007 From: jeykottalam at gmail.com (Jeyasankar Kottalam) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:04:51 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1d1379ca0701310104m65393eear9cca9dffa4be4c47@mail.gmail.com> On 1/30/07, kevin.osborne wrote: > tell me if I'm wrong but: > > - is transhumanism just another refuge for norm-rejecting > fringe-dwellers seeking yet another hippie/indie/alternative refuge > from their non-conformity? > - is it just another 'salvation' cult for ex-fundamental religious > nutjobs who've found that atheism, too, might provide them with > eternal life in the kingdom of (upload-)heaven? [snip] I don't have any data that I can point at to make a claim about whether you're right or wrong, but the rationalists would be willing to abandon any beliefs that they hold that are debunked. So if the fanciful notions of strong AI, mind uploads, nanotechnology, etc etc turn out to be impossible or shown to be extremely unlikely, I don't think most people would have a problem abandoning the idea. These are still data and fact based claims, even if combined with a good amount of speculation. Right now the trends and data doesn't exclude these possibilities, and (in my opinion) a decent case has been made that these or similar scenarios are plausible or likely. Most of your list is pretty pessimist-oriented, I think "singularitarians" and "extropians" are more like serious optimists. :-) -Jey Kottalam From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jan 31 12:26:52 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:26:52 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <470a3c520701310105j25caeddbw702fa1782bfa430a@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> <470a3c520701310105j25caeddbw702fa1782bfa430a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <63908.86.130.30.87.1170246412.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > note that you frames these statements with negative wording, but each > one can also be worded positively. Example (same order - I just > filtered out the noise): > > A movement of free thinkers. > A realistic option for an afterlife, compatible with scientific knowledge. etc I think it is important for us to be aware that both as a movement and individually we probably have a kind of superposition of the negative aspects and the positive ones. Yes, we are a movement of free thinkers but we are also to some extent a refuge for mutual reinforcement of fringe ideas. Yes, we are analysing technological transcendence but at the same time there is a taint of millenniarist thinking. And so on. Ideally we can keep the bad and cultish sides down, but we should never count on them being absent just because we are so wonderful. I doubt any movement of ideas has succeeded without a bit of the cult psychological dynamics. But many movements have failed due to it too - we need the (quasi-) spiritual driving force, but we need to avoid creating the social feedback loops that make the important things the movement and not the ideas or practical realization. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From neptune at superlink.net Wed Jan 31 12:34:33 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:34:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] States of Fear: Science or Politics? Message-ID: <013b01c74534$2a16c620$a4893cd1@pavilion> http://www.independent.org/store/events/crichton.asp Has here anyone seen this? Regards, Dan From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 12:57:02 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 07:57:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] States of Fear: Science or Politics? In-Reply-To: <013b01c74534$2a16c620$a4893cd1@pavilion> References: <013b01c74534$2a16c620$a4893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: Haven't seen it but I would be fairly confident that comments by Bruce Ames are level headed (I would suspect that they might focus on the politics of various carcinogens). The other scientists I have no knowledge about. Robert On 1/31/07, Technotranscendence wrote: > > http://www.independent.org/store/events/crichton.asp > > Has here anyone seen this? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Wed Jan 31 13:26:14 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:26:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <001e01c74500$ff13c230$de064e0c@MyComputer> 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> Message-ID: > > It just amazes me how such otherwise intelligent people can be so > incredibly > gullible. Some jackass you've never heard of posts some data on the > net > claiming to have found heat from cold fusion and that sequence of > ASCII > characters gets everybody all excited. The only thing it tells me > is that > the man had enough money to buy a computer. No, I'm wrong, it > doesn't even > tell me that, it could be a homeless man with BO who just wandered > into a > public library and posted some shit. Sometimes the crackpot even > manages to > get his ASCII sequence printed on a dead tree, but his article is > never > cited by real scientists, and even the "journal" he writes in is never > cited. > To use your felicitous phrase, this is actually "mega-bullshit", John. Fleischmann and Pons may have been wrong (though it looks like they were **probably** right on their most important points), but clearly they were not **crackpots** according to anything resembling the common usage of that term. They were well respected scientists with many publications, official positions and honors. But by this point, their work has been replicated by so many others that their particular personal characteristics are beside the point anyway. Again, I find that in this dialogue you are consistently ignoring the facts of the situation. In the above paragraph you are making demonstrably and intentionally distorted statements regarding the discoverers of CF. I find your comments uninteresting in terms of their intellectual content, but quite fascinating sociologically. The folks who originally trashed the CF research did a remarkably good job -- in the sense that not only are their own mis-statements and distortions being repeated now (almost 20 years later), but new mis-statements and distortions are being propagated (such as in the above paragraph of yours) going beyond the original ones. -- Ben G From ben at goertzel.org Wed Jan 31 13:31:33 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:31:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2EDD1A40-AB98-4570-A06C-4B5ADD23EA4F@goertzel.org> On Jan 31, 2007, at 2:45 AM, kevin.osborne wrote: > tell me if I'm wrong but: > > - is transhumanism just another refuge for norm-rejecting > fringe-dwellers seeking yet another hippie/indie/alternative refuge > from their non-conformity? > - is it just another 'salvation' cult for ex-fundamental religious > nutjobs who've found that atheism, too, might provide them with > eternal life in the kingdom of (upload-)heaven? > - is all the 'existential risk' and 'friendly a.i' gibbering just yet > another doomsday cult squealing 'the end is nigh!' in their wearable > billboards? > - is the brain-mod and bod-mod culture just yet another terminus for > the neurotic masses who buy 'self-help' and 'lose body fat!' > be-someone-better books? > - are we all being seduced by the new 'second coming' a.k.a 'the > singularity' where all the true believers will be saved and transcend > to eden? > - in a sub-culture that on the surface espouses rationalism, are we in > fact in danger of blindly drinking the fanboy kool-aid of a fantasy > future that may in fact be far beyond our means as a collective? Really, all these issues have been discussed MANY times in the past... it's not as though those on this list have never considered them. The immediately above one is the only one that I still find somewhat interesting. However, even it is somewhat overstated. Personally, I don't think I am **blindly** overoptimistic regarding the future and what impact I can have on it (if for instance my Novamente AGI system succeeds). However, I might be overoptimistic to some extent. I have inspected my mind carefully to try to remove overoptimism, but it's hard to know if one has succeeded in this sort of thing. But even so, if I am optimistic, I would not classify it as "blindly" ... > - are we simply feeding the coffers of 'faction' SF-writers and > providing unwarranted attention to run-of-the-mill nutjobs who just > happen to sell future shock as their 'chicken little' axe-to-grind? > > feel free to go off like a firecracker, I'm clearly trolling. as a > wannabe-sceptic with a history of gulliblity I'm trying to sound out > some querulous(possibly pernicious) points that inquire as to the > nudity of our little extropian emperor... > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jan 31 13:39:30 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:39:30 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Random Thought Experiments (was Coin Flip Paradox) In-Reply-To: <988084.91450.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <988084.91450.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:05:12 -0500, The Avantguardian wrote: > Yes. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Boltzman's > Equipartition Theorem may be thought of as the > Principle of Indifference as applied to the internal > energy of a classical system. Yes, and in that example the Principle of Indifference is a powerful *heuristic device*. In general it has a lot of heuristic power in the physical sciences (one reason ET Jaynes was so fond of it). This does not however prove it to be a valid principle of *logic*. You might ask why this distinction matters. It matters because certain interpretations of Kolmogorov's axioms of probability stand or fall on the question of whether the PI is a valid principle of logic. -gts From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 13:50:39 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:50:39 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <2EDD1A40-AB98-4570-A06C-4B5ADD23EA4F@goertzel.org> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> <2EDD1A40-AB98-4570-A06C-4B5ADD23EA4F@goertzel.org> Message-ID: On 1/31/07, Ben Goertzel wrote: > However, I might be overoptimistic to some extent. I have inspected > my mind carefully > to try to remove overoptimism, but it's hard to know if one has > succeeded > in this sort of thing. But even so, if I am optimistic, I would not > classify > it as "blindly" ... > Who cares? Optimistic people live longer and have better overall life-coping strategies. Keep up the good optimism! BillK From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Jan 31 14:23:51 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:23:51 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Sea boom Message-ID: <65464.86.130.30.87.1170253431.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> "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. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 14:53:50 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:53:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Gordon: "Say there, Jef! Can you help explain something to me? I don't know much about probability theory and I was hoping you could help me out." Jef: "Sure! How can I help you?" Gordon: "Let's say I have a coin hidden in my pocket. I retrieved this coin from my garbage disposal, so I should tell you it might be bent and unfair, or it might be normal and fair. Are you justified in believing or assuming it is fair?" Jef: "What a silly question, Gordon! Of course not! I would need to inspect your coin or see some other evidence before I would be justified in commenting in any way about the fairness or unfairness of that coin in your pocket. Until then I have no justification for believing or assuming it is fair, and no justification for believing or assuming it is not fair." Gordon: "Okay, that's what I thought. Just wanted to be sure. Thanks for the lesson." Jef: "You're welcome!" (The ghost of Pierre-Simon Laplace enters the room and taps Jef on the shoulder) Laplace: "Excuse me, but I couldn't help overhearing that conversation." Jef: "Huh? Who are you? Borat?" Laplace: "No, I am the one-and-only Pierre-Simon Laplace, Magnificent High Priest of the Glorious Classical School of Probability! I am here to enlighten you about the Beautiful Principle!" Jef: "What Beautiful Principle?" Laplace: "My devoted followers called it the Principle of Insufficient Reason. You moderns call it the Principle of Indifference. The principle states that if you have no reason to expect one outcome over another, the outcomes are equiprobable." Jef: "Wow! That really IS beautiful! It's BEAUTIFUL and it's ELEGANT, so it must be a TRUE PRINCIPLE OF LOGIC!" Laplace: "That's what I thought, too. Good luck with it, Jef. I have to go now." (The ghost of Laplace leaves the room.) Jef: "Say there, Gordon! Come on back here! I have something new to teach you!" Gordon: "Great, what is it?" Jef: "I was wrong before when I said I have no justification for assuming that coin in your pocket is fair. According to the Beautiful Principle of Indifference, I am justified in assuming the coin IS fair because I have no reason to believe it is NOT fair. I heard this from a very reliable source: Pierre-Simon Laplace!" Gordon: "Laplace? Reliable? But wasn't he wrong about the determinism thing?" Jef: "Maybe, but this isn't about that. It's about The Beautiful Principle, Gordon! Don't you see? It's BEAUTIFUL and it's ELEGANT and it's TRUE!" Gordon: "Let me get this straight: a few minutes ago you told me you were NOT justified in believing or assuming anything about the fairness of the coin in my pocket, and now you're telling me you ARE justified in assuming the coin is fair, *despite having obtained no new knowledge about the coin itself*. Is that right? Jef: "Right. It's about the Principle, Gordon. It's BEAUTIFUL. You should be glad I told you about it! You need only dwell on its magnificent beauty for a few moments, and then you too will have THE POWER." Gordon: "If you say so..." -gts From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Jan 31 15:21:29 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:21:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Partisans was Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20070131091915.03ae7448@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:26 AM 1/31/2007 -0500, Ben wrote: snip >I find your comments uninteresting in terms of their intellectual >content, but quite fascinating sociologically. I think I have mentioned it before, but some really interesting work was done in this area by Drew Westen (Also famous for "Oy, to be a Goy on Christmas") From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Westen#Political_bias_study which I just updated: "In January 2006 a group of scientists led by Drew Westen announced at the annual Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference in Palm Springs, California the results of a study in which functional magnetic resonance imaging showed that self-described Democrats and Republicans responded to negative remarks about their political candidate of choice in systematically biased ways. "Specifically, when Republican test subjects were shown self-contradictory quotes by George W. Bush and when Democratic test subjects were shown self-contradictory quotes by John Kerry, both groups tended to explain away the apparent contradictions in a manner biased to favor their candidate of choice. Similarly, areas of the brain responsible for reasoning (presumably the prefrontal cortex) did not respond during these conclusions while areas of the brain controlling emotions (presumably the amygdala and/or cingulate gyrus) showed increased activity as compared to the subject's responses to politically neutral statements associated with politically neutral people (such as Tom Hanks).[2] "Subjects were then presented with information that exonerated their candidate of choice. When this occurred, areas of the brain involved in reward processing (presumably the orbitofrontal cortex and/or striatum/nucleus accumbens) showed increased activity. "As Dr. Westen said, "None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged... Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want... Everyone... may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts.'" [3] Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18:11, pp. 1947?1958 http://www.psychsystems.net/lab/06_Westen_fmri.pdf While this is really interesting the deeper question of why people hold tight to partisan beliefs is not widely understood. And they hold them not just about religions, but a wide variety of beliefs, including science ones. 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. Keith Henson From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 15:32:48 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:32:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240701310732tcbc9d16ob66f326dd7a102f0@mail.gmail.com> reminiscent of conversations in Godel, Escher, Bach So are you saying that I should inspect the coin to determine that it is fair? If I can't comment -in principle- on your coin, then I have to test it? So how is the test done? If it looks like a normal coin, it may still be rigged. You might have a magnetic coin that tests 'fair' during my examination, but during our bet you throw it onto a magnetic surface so I always lose. Do I retroactively determine unfair coin after I lose to you, or fair when I win? Or do I assume no objective state, and base your coin only on what I know of you regarding your likelihood to cheat me or not? That's a completely different kind of probability. (maybe by contributing to this conversation I will gain some understanding by being corrected/taught in the process) On 1/31/07, gts wrote: > Gordon: "Say there, Jef! Can you help explain something to me? I don't > know much about probability theory and I was hoping you could help me out." > Jef: "Right. It's about the Principle, Gordon. It's BEAUTIFUL. You should > be glad I told you about it! You need only dwell on its magnificent beauty > for a few moments, and then you too will have THE POWER." > > Gordon: "If you say so..." From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 31 16:08:48 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:08:48 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com><62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: [Top-posting since it would be confusing to attempt comments within the farce below.] Gordon, in real life I'd expect Jef to consistently refer you back to the principle that equivalent states of information yield equivalent properties (and likely mention the relevance of limited context in any real-world scenario of decision-making.) The scenarios contributed by Stuart are very much to the point and should be helpful. As to your scenario of the possibly bent coin, it should be helpful if you would imagine how you would bet if your survival depended on minimizing the error magnitude of the subsequent trials and you weren't allowed to claim "no information, so no bet." - Jef gts wrote: > > Gordon: "Say there, Jef! Can you help explain something to me? I > don't > know much about probability theory and I was hoping you could help > me out." > > Jef: "Sure! How can I help you?" > > Gordon: "Let's say I have a coin hidden in my pocket. I retrieved > this > coin from my garbage disposal, so I should tell you it might be > bent and > unfair, or it might be normal and fair. Are you justified in > believing or > assuming it is fair?" > > Jef: "What a silly question, Gordon! Of course not! I would need to > inspect your coin or see some other evidence before I would be > justified > in commenting in any way about the fairness or unfairness of that > coin in > your pocket. Until then I have no justification for believing or > assuming > it is fair, and no justification for believing or assuming it is > not fair." > > Gordon: "Okay, that's what I thought. Just wanted to be sure. > Thanks for > the lesson." > > Jef: "You're welcome!" > > (The ghost of Pierre-Simon Laplace enters the room and taps Jef on > the > shoulder) > > Laplace: "Excuse me, but I couldn't help overhearing that > conversation." > > Jef: "Huh? Who are you? Borat?" > > Laplace: "No, I am the one-and-only Pierre-Simon Laplace, > Magnificent High > Priest of the Glorious Classical School of Probability! I am here > to > enlighten you about the Beautiful Principle!" > > Jef: "What Beautiful Principle?" > > Laplace: "My devoted followers called it the Principle of > Insufficient > Reason. You moderns call it the Principle of Indifference. The > principle > states that if you have no reason to expect one outcome over > another, the > outcomes are equiprobable." > > Jef: "Wow! That really IS beautiful! It's BEAUTIFUL and it's > ELEGANT, so > it must be a TRUE PRINCIPLE OF LOGIC!" > > Laplace: "That's what I thought, too. Good luck with it, Jef. I > have to go > now." > > (The ghost of Laplace leaves the room.) > > Jef: "Say there, Gordon! Come on back here! I have something new to > teach > you!" > > Gordon: "Great, what is it?" > > Jef: "I was wrong before when I said I have no justification for > assuming > that coin in your pocket is fair. According to the Beautiful > Principle of > Indifference, I am justified in assuming the coin IS fair because I > have > no reason to believe it is NOT fair. I heard this from a very > reliable > source: Pierre-Simon Laplace!" > > Gordon: "Laplace? Reliable? But wasn't he wrong about the > determinism > thing?" > > Jef: "Maybe, but this isn't about that. It's about The Beautiful > Principle, Gordon! Don't you see? It's BEAUTIFUL and it's ELEGANT > and it's > TRUE!" > > Gordon: "Let me get this straight: a few minutes ago you told me > you were > NOT justified in believing or assuming anything about the fairness > of the > coin in my pocket, and now you're telling me you ARE justified in > assuming > the coin is fair, *despite having obtained no new knowledge about > the coin > itself*. Is that right? > > Jef: "Right. It's about the Principle, Gordon. It's BEAUTIFUL. You > should > be glad I told you about it! You need only dwell on its magnificent > beauty > for a few moments, and then you too will have THE POWER." > > Gordon: "If you say so..." > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jan 31 16:03:35 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:03:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: <62c14240701310732tcbc9d16ob66f326dd7a102f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240701310732tcbc9d16ob66f326dd7a102f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:32:48 -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > So are you saying that I should inspect the coin to determine that it > is fair?... Yes, but I wouldn't get too hung up about the coin in my story. It's just a convenient prop for the sake of illustration, and maybe not the best prop at that. The point is that the principle of indifference gives one the permission to assign imaginary probabilities to events when one is actually in a state of total and complete ignorance about the true probabilities of those events. Is that logical? I don't think so. As I wrote yesterday, the "principle" is in my opinion not really a logical principle at all. It is rather a wild-assed conjecture made in the face of complete ignorance about the true state of nature. Granted this wild-assed conjecture is less wild than some alternatives one could make in ignorance, (if one is going to make this unjustified logical leap then it certainly makes sense to assign the probabilities equally rather than unequally), but it's a wild-eyed conjecture nonetheless. -gts From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 16:34:49 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:34:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <2EDD1A40-AB98-4570-A06C-4B5ADD23EA4F@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <989268.71617.qm@web56504.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Well, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of us are doing a lot more speculating about the future than making positive claims about the future. There's a big difference between saying, "Hey, this technology is scientifically plausible judging from the information we have now...let's discuss it and its implications", and saying, "This technology is coming and we're all going to be converted into immortal cyborgs come 2012!" One of the primary characteristics of a cult is the making of claims that are expected to be believed on faith rather than evidence. I've never had anyone in transhumanist circles try to insist to me that I needed to believe in some particular thing, or trust in some particular charismatic figure, or accept without question that Technology X will arrive on Date X to Save Us All(TM). However, I do think that H+ is a sort of "refuge" for people who might be somewhere on the fringes of the mainstream, in the sense that we tend to be prone to speculating beyond the immediate status quo. But the same could be said for anyone who decides to, say, become an artist or freelancer rather than take over the comfortable, secure family business. In addition, I don't think that speculating about possible future developments is the same thing as living in, or perpetuating a fantasy -- I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I know that I don't stake my entire emotional well-being on convincing myself of a particular future utopian outcome. If things happen, they happen. If they don't, they don't, and the universe keeps going. - Anne --------------------------------- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 31 16:34:41 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:34:41 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com><62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com><62c14240701310732tcbc9d16ob66f326dd7a102f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: gts wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:32:48 -0500, Mike Dougherty > > wrote: > > > So are you saying that I should inspect the coin to determine > that it > > is fair?... > > Yes, but I wouldn't get too hung up about the coin in my story. > It's just > a convenient prop for the sake of illustration, and maybe not the > best > prop at that. > > The point is that the principle of indifference gives one the > permission > to assign imaginary probabilities to events when one is actually in > a > state of total and complete ignorance about the true probabilities > of > those events. Is that logical? I don't think so. > > As I wrote yesterday, the "principle" is in my opinion not really a > logical principle at all. It is rather a wild-assed conjecture made > in the > face of complete ignorance about the true state of nature. Granted > this > wild-assed conjecture is less wild than some alternatives one could > make > in ignorance, (if one is going to make this unjustified logical > leap then > it certainly makes sense to assign the probabilities equally rather > than > unequally), but it's a wild-eyed conjecture nonetheless. I remember clearly one morning walking to school when I was in the seventh grade (school was about three miles away and I much preferred walking and thinking to sitting in a bus full of raucous kids.) I was thinking about randomness, and a part of me kept saying "Yes, a tossed coin converges on 50% heads, but what *causes* it to do that?" Then I made a connection to the idea of logical induction, and the same question "Yes, but what *makes* the process valid?", and then I further connected this thinking to Newton's first law of motion, again thinking "Yes, but what *keeps* an object moving at constant velocity?". And I realized that it comes down to information. Any deviation or bias would require additional information, and I had no reason to think there was any additional information to be considered. So it came down to a pure issue of parsimony, of basic logic and supported by all available experiencial evidence. The elegance and beauty of these ideas fitting into place resonated noticeably in my mind for days and weeks to come. FWIW, - Jef From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Jan 31 16:42:54 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:42:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070131103330.02db6720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 01:45 AM 1/31/2007, Kevin wrote: >tell me if I'm wrong but: Questioning motivations is welcomed, but please do a bit of research first. I believe all of your questions, or most of them, have been asked, written about and available for public viewing on the web and in print form. If would be far more advantageous for you, as a sceptic, to delve more deeply into the subject matter and provide some succulent questions which we can chew over. Otherwise, the questions are soggy and tasteless. >feel free to go off like a firecracker, I'm clearly trolling. as a >wannabe-sceptic with a history of gulliblity I'm trying to sound out >some querulous(possibly pernicious) points that inquire as to the >nudity of our little extropian emperor... If you want to take practical, position to prove or disprove transhumanism rethink your questions. They appear to be biased and I think you might benefit from objective questioning. Best wishes, 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 natasha at natasha.cc Wed Jan 31 17:13:36 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:13:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] GEOLOGY: Dance of the Continents Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070131110908.044b9b40@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Here is a sweet multi-media piece from the NYTimes.com: >Geologists are drawing on new understandings of the Earth to map how the >land looked in ages past as well as its likely configurations many >millions of years from now. >http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/science/20070109_PALEO_GRAPHIC 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 Wed Jan 31 17:49:21 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:49:21 -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> Message-ID: <001d01c74560$2abee900$dd084e0c@MyComputer> "Ben Goertzel" > Fleischmann and Pons may have been wrong MAY HAVE?! I don't believe any scientific paper in the 20'th century has been more wrong, certainly none has wasted more time or led to more blind alleys. > They were well respected scientists with many publications, > official positions and honors. With emphasis on "were"; nobody is giving them honors today. > their work has been replicated by so many others Yes, Joe Blow the truck driver finds it remarkably easy to replicate the work, but the funny thing is nobody else can. > The folks who originally trashed the CF research did a remarkably good job And satellites are beaming evil thoughts straight into my brain, that's why I have this aluminum foil hat on. John K Clark From scerir at libero.it Wed Jan 31 18:24:49 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:24:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] random links References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003f01c74565$18558620$d7971f97@archimede> The air we (italians) breath http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/the-air-we-breathe/ The worst possible move http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/01/28/the-worst-possible-move/ Morley's theorem (1899), which says that the three points of intersection of adjacent trisectors of the angles of any triangle form an equilateral triangle. http://polymathematics.typepad.com/polymath/2007/01/proof_of_morley.html Prime numbers peep in. "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 Tr(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." http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212084 Incoherent decoherence http://mattleifer.wordpress.com/2007/01/24/what-can-decoherence-do-for-us/ From ben at goertzel.org Wed Jan 31 18:29:49 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:29:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings In-Reply-To: <001d01c74560$2abee900$dd084e0c@MyComputer> 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: On Jan 31, 2007, at 12:49 PM, John K Clark wrote: > "Ben Goertzel" > >> Fleischmann and Pons may have been wrong > > MAY HAVE?! I don't believe any scientific paper in the 20'th > century has > been more wrong, certainly none has wasted more time or led to more > blind > alleys. > >> They were well respected scientists with many publications, >> official positions and honors. > > With emphasis on "were"; nobody is giving them honors today. > >> their work has been replicated by so many others > > Yes, Joe Blow the truck driver finds it remarkably easy to > replicate the > work, but the funny thing is nobody else can. Replications have occurred in many university and industry labs during the last 17 years. None so far as I know have occurred in truck stops. Read the literature if you're actually curious about the facts of the situation (but it seems you're not...); I have better things to do than argue with people who refuse to read the basic facts regarding the thing they're arguing about!! It would be possible to frame a cogent argument against the reality of CF, but you are not doing so. Ben > >> The folks who originally trashed the CF research did a remarkably >> good job > > And satellites are beaming evil thoughts straight into my brain, > that's why > I have this aluminum foil hat on. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jan 31 18:30:42 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:30:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: <253094.12185.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> References: <253094.12185.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > That Bayes law cannot predict outcomes reliably in an > informational vaccuum is not at all a weakness of the > principle. To be clear, I am not here arguing against Bayes' theorem. I am arguing that the principle of indifference sometimes invoked by Objective/Logical Bayesians, (not to be confused with Subjective Bayesians), and by other logical theorists of probability (those who take after John Maynard Keynes) in the complete absence of information is not a principle of logic in the formal sense of that word. Subjective Bayesians may use the same principle, but they are wise enough in my opinion to know better than to think the principle of indifference can be derived or supported by formal logic. 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. The principle of indifference looks to me like illogical hocus-pocus, pure nonsense left over from the naive theory of Laplace. It may still be useful as a heuristic device, but let's call a spade and spade here! If the principle looks like a beautiful and elegant principle of logic to some people then, well, too bad for them. :) -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 31 18:44:35 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:44:35 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <253094.12185.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Gordon, just to get another calibration point, do you believe in the validity of the principle of parsimony, aka Occam's razor? Or do you possibly have a similar problem with it lacking a basis in logic? - Jef > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:31 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox > > > That Bayes law cannot predict outcomes reliably in an > > informational vaccuum is not at all a weakness of the > > principle. > > To be clear, I am not here arguing against Bayes' theorem. > > I am arguing that the principle of indifference sometimes invoked > by > Objective/Logical Bayesians, (not to be confused with Subjective > Bayesians), and by other logical theorists of probability (those > who take > after John Maynard Keynes) in the complete absence of information > is not a > principle of logic in the formal sense of that word. > > Subjective Bayesians may use the same principle, but they are wise > enough > in my opinion to know better than to think the principle of > indifference > can be derived or supported by formal logic. > > 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. > > The principle of indifference looks to me like illogical hocus- > pocus, pure > nonsense left over from the naive theory of Laplace. It may still > be > useful as a heuristic device, but let's call a spade and spade > here! > > If the principle looks like a beautiful and elegant principle of > logic to > some people then, well, too bad for them. :) > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 31 18:50:37 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:50:37 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <253094.12185.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: gts wrote: > 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. Gordon, it seems here again that you're not cognizant of the difference between probability and liklihood. If you were to say that "Outcomes X and Y are therefore equally likely", then we could agree that this does not follow. Does this statement make sense to you? > > The principle of indifference looks to me like illogical hocus- > pocus, pure > nonsense left over from the naive theory of Laplace. It may still > be > useful as a heuristic device, but let's call a spade and spade > here! > > If the principle looks like a beautiful and elegant principle of > logic to > some people then, well, too bad for them. :) From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jan 31 19:06:02 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:06:02 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070131103330.02db6720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20070131103330.02db6720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <45C0E89A.5040707@pobox.com> "How the United States Marine Corps Differs from Cults" http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing2.html -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 19:02:24 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:02:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jef, I promised yesterday to answer in more detail a post of yours which you wrote in reply to my post about the problem in decision theory. Your message is interesting but you did not actually answer mine directly, except with your usual argument about context. You wrote: > Gordon, principles cannot "fail miserably". People can fail miserably > when they try to apply principles out of context. But otherwise you wrote nothing more about the problem. You seem to claiming here that the decision theorist who wrote that text on decision theory was somehow wrong in his application or misapplication of the principle of indifference, but yet you did not tell me why or how he should have proceeded. Will you please address the problem directly? Why do you think this decision theorist was wrong to warn his readers to stay clear of the principle of indifference? In what way did he "apply principle out of context"? Why was he wrong to conclude that in a life or death situation, the principle could lead to disaster? Here it is again: This is from a text on decision theory [1], in which the author rejects the principle as a decision-making rule on two grounds: 1) it is illogical and philosophically untenable (if we have no reason to expect one outcome more than another then we have no reason to assume they are equiprobable, either) and, perhaps more critically, 2) the principle can lead to disaster... A decision must be made between action 1 (A1) and action 2 (A2). One of two scenarios will unfold (S1 or S2). We are ignorant of the probabilities of S1 and S2, so we invoke the principle of indifference (also called the principle of insufficient reason, as in this text) and assign each scenario a probability of 50%. As below, the expected utility (EU) of A1 is therefore 100, calculated as (.5 * -100) + (.5 * 300) = 100. The expected utility of A2 is 20, similarly calculated. S1 S2 EU ---------------------------------- A1| -100 300 100 A2| 10 30 20 We choose A1 as this action offers the highest expected utility. The author writes, "The principle of insufficient reason could lead us to disaster... If, unbeknownst to us, the probability of S1 were, say, .9, the expected utility of A1 would be significantly less than that of A2. In a life or death situation the principle could be totally disastrous." It's beautiful, though. :-) -gts 1. Choices: An Introduction to Decision Theory By Michael D. Resnik http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0816614407&id=4genrKNUkKcC&pg=RA2-PA35&lpg=RA2-PA35&ots=wE4Uxk7bqE&dq=principle+of+insufficient+reason&sig=PsMUy3fqcMgFha8Kyx2HLaC-EA8 From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 19:02:28 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:02:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > There is great beauty in principles such as the Principle of > Indifference... Here is another example of where this "beautiful principle" fails miserably: This is from a text on decision theory [1], in which the author rejects the principle as a decision-making rule on two grounds: 1) it is illogical and philosophically untenable (if we have no reason to expect one outcome more than another then we have no reason to assume they are equiprobable, either) and, perhaps more critically, 2) the principle can lead to disaster... A decision must be made between action 1 (A1) and action 2 (A2). One of two scenarios will unfold (S1 or S2). We are ignorant of the probabilities of S1 and S2, so we invoke the principle of indifference (also called the principle of insufficient reason, as in this text) and assign each scenario a probability of 50%. As below, the expected utility (EU) of A1 is therefore 100, calculated as (.5 * -100) + (.5 * 300) = 100. The expected utility of A2 is 20, similarly calculated. S1 S2 EU ---------------------------------- A1| -100 300 100 A2| 10 30 20 We choose A1 as this action offers the highest expected utility. The author writes, "The principle of insufficient reason could lead us to disaster... If, unbeknownst to us, the probability of S1 were, say, .9, the expected utility of A1 would be significantly less than that of A2. In a life or death situation the principle could be totally disastrous." It's beautiful, though. :-) -gts 1. Choices: An Introduction to Decision Theory By Michael D. Resnik http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0816614407&id=4genrKNUkKcC&pg=RA2-PA35&lpg=RA2-PA35&ots=wE4Uxk7bqE&dq=principle+of+insufficient+reason&sig=PsMUy3fqcMgFha8Kyx2HLaC-EA8 From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 31 19:13:55 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:13:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <45C0E89A.5040707@pobox.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com><6.2.1.2.2.20070131103330.02db6720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <45C0E89A.5040707@pobox.com> Message-ID: Eliezer wrote: > "How the United States Marine Corps Differs from Cults" > http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing2.html > What a relief to know that there's no "brainwashing or thought reform" going on in the US Marines. I agree the Marines are not the same as a cult, but I never realized the difference was so black and white. ;-) [In fact the older I get, the more I find nothing is quite black and white. My cognitive abilities are obviously fading.] - Jef From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jan 31 19:36:21 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:36:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: Re: Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070131193621.GD21677@leitl.org> Just checking back: are people still interested in this thread? Flames/praises please to me by private mail. On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:02:24PM -0500, gts wrote: > Jef, I promised yesterday to answer in more detail a post of yours which > you wrote in reply to my post about the problem in decision theory. Your > message is interesting but you did not actually answer mine directly, > except with your usual argument about context. -- 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 gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 19:32:34 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:32:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <253094.12185.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:50:37 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > Gordon, it seems here again that you're not cognizant of the difference > between probability and likelihood. The principle as advertised makes no such distinction, but I think we're making progress here... > If you were to say that "Outcomes X > and Y are therefore equally likely", then we could agree that this does > not follow. Good! Now, if it does not follow that the outcomes are equally likely, then on what logical grounds should we assume that they are? I think you're beginning to see now that the emperor is in fact wearing no clothes. Good for you! -gts From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jan 31 19:45:46 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:45:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com><6.2.1.2.2.20070131103330.02db6720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <45C0E89A.5040707@pobox.com> Message-ID: <45C0F1EA.3000009@pobox.com> Jef Allbright wrote: > Eliezer wrote: > >>"How the United States Marine Corps Differs from Cults" >>http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing2.html > > > What a relief to know that there's no "brainwashing or thought reform" > going on in the US Marines. What a relief to know that there's no "brainwashing or thought reform" going on in grad school. There's an important difference in method, Jef, which is what the article is about. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 31 19:57:06 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:57:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com><62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: gts wrote: > Jef, I promised yesterday to answer in more detail a post of yours > which > you wrote in reply to my post about the problem in decision theory. > Your > message is interesting but you did not actually answer mine > directly, > except with your usual argument about context. > > You wrote: > > > Gordon, principles cannot "fail miserably". People can fail > miserably > > when they try to apply principles out of context. > > But otherwise you wrote nothing more about the problem. > > You seem to claiming here that the decision theorist who wrote that > text > on decision theory was somehow wrong in his application or > misapplication > of the principle of indifference, but yet you did not tell me why > or how > he should have proceeded. > > Will you please address the problem directly? Why do you think this > decision theorist was wrong to warn his readers to stay clear of > the > principle of indifference? In what way did he "apply principle out > of > context"? > > Why was he wrong to conclude that in a life or death situation, the > principle could lead to disaster? No, of course it can lead to disaster. He wasn't wrong. You were. He knew what he intended. You didn't. Again, this illustrates the importance of arguing from *your own* point of view. Gordon, it appears that as an instuctor, Michael Resnik had constructed a strawman with the Principle of Insufficient Reason along the way to demonstrating that no method, including the PI, is capable of providing good priors under conditions of ignorance. The best you can do it assign equal probabilities, which can't be considered "good" since it is absolutely neutral. The instructor was emphasizing the importance of obtaining better priors. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 31 19:58:55 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:58:55 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <253094.12185.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Gordon, why do you gleefully ignore the key distinction I laid out for you? - Jef > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:33 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:50:37 -0500, Jef Allbright > > wrote: > > > Gordon, it seems here again that you're not cognizant of the > difference > > between probability and likelihood. > > The principle as advertised makes no such distinction, but I think > we're > making progress here... > > > If you were to say that "Outcomes X > > and Y are therefore equally likely", then we could agree that > this does > > not follow. > > Good! Now, if it does not follow that the outcomes are equally > likely, > then on what logical grounds should we assume that they are? > > I think you're beginning to see now that the emperor is in fact > wearing no > clothes. Good for you! > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jan 31 20:18:51 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:18:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com> <62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:57:06 -0500, Jef Allbright wrote: > it appears that as an instructor, Michael Resnik had constructed > a strawman with the Principle of Insufficient Reason Not a strawman at all! Either the principle is a sound approach to decision-making under conditions of ignorance, or else it's not. He demonstrated with a very simple and general problem that it's not. > .... demonstrating that no method, including the PI, is capable of > providing > good priors under conditions of ignorance. Exactly!!! That is exactly what he demonstrated, at least concerning the PI. So you can throw it out as logical principle. Use it when you absolutely must, but don't imagine you're doing something with a firm basis in logic. Also you needn't think you're necessarily doing something illogical if you set your priors by some other method. It's okay for Bayesians to use different priors, as the subjectivists have known all along. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jan 31 20:53:30 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:53:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox In-Reply-To: References: <20070129045959.67186.qmail@web60511.mail.yahoo.com><62c14240701291634g675f85b3q4d10ddddd9ebdc8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Okay, I'm done. - Jef > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:19 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Coin Flip Paradox > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:57:06 -0500, Jef Allbright > > wrote: > > > it appears that as an instructor, Michael Resnik had constructed > > a strawman with the Principle of Insufficient Reason > > Not a strawman at all! > > Either the principle is a sound approach to decision-making under > conditions of ignorance, or else it's not. He demonstrated with a > very > simple and general problem that it's not. > > > .... demonstrating that no method, including the PI, is capable > of > > providing > > good priors under conditions of ignorance. > > Exactly!!! That is exactly what he demonstrated, at least > concerning the > PI. > > So you can throw it out as logical principle. Use it when you > absolutely > must, but don't imagine you're doing something with a firm basis in > logic. > Also you needn't think you're necessarily doing something illogical > if you > set your priors by some other method. It's okay for Bayesians to > use > different priors, as the subjectivists have known all along. > > -gts > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 22:18:01 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:18:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] transhumanism=doomsday cult b.s? In-Reply-To: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> References: <3642969c0701302345he9d716i56696ea78cb980da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0701311418j75fbda8ctf85bcf7ff68e08a3@mail.gmail.com> 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aiguy at comcast.net Wed Jan 31 22:50:35 2007 From: aiguy at comcast.net (Gary Miller) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:50:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reputation was Education monopolies (2) In-Reply-To: <5df798750701300758j54d51288vd3445ab4c8d87718@mail.gmail.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070130091913.03ab7430@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5df798750701300758j54d51288vd3445ab4c8d87718@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00fd01c7458a$392de160$6801a8c0@ZANDRA2> Are all mammals genome as large and complicated as that of humans? I would guess mice have already or are close to being sequenced because of their importance in lab testing. In terms of narrowing the search for genes associated with longevity though, would the size of their genome Be a lot smaller and therefore easier to compare/decode? -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ricardo Barreira Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:58 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Reputation was Education monopolies (2) > As a suggestion, most rodents live about two years. Naked mole rats > live 20 or more. It would be very interesting to compare the genome > of rats, mice and mole rats for clues as to why mole rats live so long. I'm quite ignorant in terms of biology, but (as an initial approach) would it be necessary to go to the genetic level? _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat