From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sun Jul 1 01:13:31 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:13:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "The Future is Ours" image collection Message-ID: <007901c7bb7d$8bc4dff0$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello Extropians, I have created a small collection of images called "The Future is Ours". You can take a look at them by visiting: http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/futureisours.htm I was inspired by the potential that we have inside of ourselves to improve upon our very own future. As always, I love to hear your thoughts on my artwork at my arts and animation blog. To comment on this collection visit: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/06/future-is-ours.html Have a lovely weekend! Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmbutler at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 01:53:10 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:53:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Freeman Dyson on "Our Biotech Future" Message-ID: <7d79ed890706301853k4b9b0acbv36d5dcbb51114553@mail.gmail.com> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20370 Read the whole thing. Excerpts: === I predict that the domestication of biotechnology will dominate our lives during the next fifty years at least as much as the domestication of computers has dominated our lives during the previous fifty years. ....It is likely that genetic engineering will remain unpopular and controversial so long as it remains a centralized activity in the hands of large corporations. I see a bright future for the biotechnology industry when it follows the path of the computer industry, the path that von Neumann failed to foresee, becoming small and domesticated rather than big and centralized. The first step in this direction was already taken recently, when genetically modified tropical fish with new and brilliant colors appeared in pet stores. For biotechnology to become domesticated, the next step is to become user-friendly.... Every orchid or rose or lizard or snake is the work of a dedicated and skilled breeder. There are thousands of people, amateurs and professionals, who devote their lives to this business. Now imagine what will happen when the tools of genetic engineering become accessible to these people. There will be do-it-yourself kits.... Domesticated biotechnology, once it gets into the hands of housewives and children, will give us an explosion of diversity of new living creatures, rather than the monoculture crops that the big corporations prefer. New lineages will proliferate to replace those that monoculture farming and deforestation have destroyed. Designing genomes will be a personal thing, a new art form as creative as painting or sculpture. Few of the new creations will be masterpieces, but a great many will bring joy to their creators and variety to our fauna and flora.... ....Rules and regulations will be needed to make sure that our kids do not endanger themselves and others. The dangers of biotechnology are real and serious. If domestication of biotechnology is the wave of the future, five important questions need to be answered. First, can it be stopped? Second, ought it to be stopped? Third, if stopping it is either impossible or undesirable, what are the appropriate limits that our society must impose on it? Fourth, how should the limits be decided? Fifth, how should the limits be enforced, nationally and internationally? I do not attempt to answer these questions here. I leave it to our children and grandchildren to supply the answers. === -- 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 3 10:01:01 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 03:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Signs Message-ID: <868442.29208.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Amara should get a kick out of this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/01/ap/preswho/main3003506.shtml First his limosine Cadillac 1 and now his boat. Some people just can't take a hint. ;-) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 3 14:31:00 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 07:31:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Signs In-Reply-To: <868442.29208.qm@web60521.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200707031442.l63EgucD003501@lily.ziaspace.com> Cool, the ExI server is back up, good. {8-] spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:01 AM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] Signs > > Amara should get a kick out of this: > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/01/ap/preswho/main3003506.shtml > > First his limosine Cadillac 1 and now his boat. Some > people just can't take a hint. ;-) > > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and > leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > __________ > Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's > Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. > http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 3 16:30:53 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:30:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Status report? Message-ID: The Exi Archives are not back up yet. Any chance of a status report from those up to their waist in the swamp, fighting the alligators? BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 3 18:16:11 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:16:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NASA report on re-engineering global warming Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070703131538.024726b0@satx.rr.com> http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/SolarRadiationCP.pdf From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue Jul 3 19:57:40 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 15:57:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Future: modern government Message-ID: <380-22007723195740411@M2W020.mail2web.com> I was just reading a comment by Fillon in an address before the newly elected parliment: "We must renew our political democracy, modernize our social democracy, and support our intellectual and scientific excellence." Le Fran?ais moderne? While I like modernizing institutions so that they function with up-to-date techniques and methods, I chuckled in thinking about how this might affect the core postmodernists' interesting by trying dribble. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From amara at amara.com Tue Jul 3 20:40:49 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:40:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch pics (encapsulation with aerodynamical fairing) Message-ID: Here you see pictures of the task of encapsulating the Dawn spacecraft to protect it during launch and ascent by giving it an aerodynamically smooth nose cone via a 'fairing'. http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173 The 'go' for launch is pending a final review of the weather and availability of support (airplane and ship) for post-launch tracking. The decision will be made Thursday, as I understand. The launch window opens up on Saturday, for five days. If Dawn misses it, then the launch will be pushed back to September. (Partly because of competition with the launch window of the Mars Phoenix spacecraft, getting ready now on the adjacent launch pad.) 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 Wed Jul 4 10:38:04 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:38:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Status report? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/3/07, BillK wrote: > The Exi Archives are not back up yet. > > Any chance of a status report from those up to their waist in the > swamp, fighting the alligators? > The Archives are back online now. Are all systems go now? BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Jul 4 15:45:32 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:45:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Status report? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200707041545.l64FjbKp006918@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> At 05:38 AM 7/4/2007, you wrote: >On 7/3/07, BillK wrote: > > The Exi Archives are not back up yet. > > > > Any chance of a status report from those up to their waist in the > > swamp, fighting the alligators? John Klos our technical advisor and administrator just emailed me and said that the archives are back up. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute 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 neville_06 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 4 15:54:32 2007 From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 08:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Future: modern government In-Reply-To: <380-22007723195740411@M2W020.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <785647.53645.qm@web57508.mail.re1.yahoo.com> First, though those at the top of the government tend to be intelligent, the middle and lower layers are staffed with too many dim-witted outdated thinkers and sinecurists. But all we can realistically do is wait for them to die off-- and unfortunately thanks to the very life extension we advocate they are living longer to reach full retirement instead of dying in office, say, of lung cancer as so many smoking bureaucrats did in the past. The solution, then? Early retirement :) "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" wrote: I was just reading a comment by Fillon in an address before the newly elected parliment: "We must renew our political democracy, modernize our social democracy, and support our intellectual and scientific excellence." Le Fran?ais moderne? While I like modernizing institutions so that they function with up-to-date techniques and methods, I chuckled in thinking about how this might affect the core postmodernists' interesting by trying dribble. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 4 17:26:27 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:26:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] UFO proponent finds extropes naive Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070704122021.02304d88@satx.rr.com> http://www.ballardian.com/ufopunk-mac-tonnies-strange-blue-world Interesting, irritating interview, with nice insights into J. G. Ballard's fiction and tiresome misunderstandings of evolution, singularity, etc. From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 4 17:28:25 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:28:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] resend: POST MORTAL concludes today Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070704122742.022d5288@satx.rr.com> The final instalment of my and Barbara Lamar's free online novel POST MORTAL SYNDROME is up today [well, it was when I first sent this, before it bounced] at where all 56 eps will remain archived, I understand, for the next six months or so. Don't feel shy about posting comments, pro or con, in the box at the site. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 4 17:32:03 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:32:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] resend: Re: Is this really the case? Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070704123112.0246a7d8@satx.rr.com> At 02:00 PM 6/29/2007 -0400, Josh wrote: >In answer to Anne's original query. IMHO, the answer is yes for much of >the U.S. And elsewhere. Consider this depraved lunacy: Floods are judgment on society, say bishops By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 11:50pm BST 30/06/2007 The summer floods are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, claim senior Church of England bishops. One, the Bishop of Carlisle, even said that the introduction of pro-gay laws had provoked God to send the storms that have left thousands homeless. The bishops argued that while those affected are innocent victims, the flooding was a result of western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching. The Rt Rev Graham Dow, said that the floods were not only a result of a lack of respect for the planet, but also a judgment for decadence. "This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused." The Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones, previously seen as a future Archbishop of Canterbury or York, said: "People no longer see natural disasters as an act of God. However, we are now reaping what we have sown. If we live in a profligate way then there are going to be consequences." God is exposing us to the truth of what we have done." The Bishops spoke as flood-hit communities were warned to expect up to two inches of rain - this weekend. From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jul 4 18:58:19 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:58:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] resend: Re: Is this really the case? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070704123112.0246a7d8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070704123112.0246a7d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070704185819.GD7079@leitl.org> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:32:03PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > The summer floods are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of > modern society, claim senior Church of England bishops. Given that linearisation of the aquifiers and sealing of the landscape reducing precipitation retention capacity (and, possibly, statistically relevant more extreme weather as a result of anthropogenic climate forcing) he's actually quite correct. Immorality, check, greed, check, but largely, stupidity (biiig check). God, ok, he completely blows his point there. Bummer. Better luck, next time. > One, the Bishop of Carlisle, even said that the introduction of > pro-gay laws had provoked God to send the storms that have left > thousands homeless. This would be so deliciously hilarious, if the guy wasn't completely nuts. He'll be, like, ravaged by rabid squirrels, next. > The bishops argued that while those affected are innocent victims, That's some friendly fire there. Looks remarkably sloppy for a omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being. Unless this is a very kinky BDSM "Show some respect!" session. (Pst. "Love Jesus!" is your safeword. Mohammed is not an option. Buddha is straight out. Only Jesus(tm) will deliver you from the valley of shadow). > the flooding was a result of western civilisation's decision to > ignore biblical teaching. The Rt Rev Graham Dow, said that the floods > were not only a result of a lack of respect for the planet, but also -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 4 20:32:20 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:32:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] agency-based personal identity In-Reply-To: References: <3AC703DA-F965-47C3-B030-BE5EE179F855@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:59:24 -0400, Jef Allbright wrote: > Consider a newborn infant. It functions on its own behalf, at least > enough to find and suck on a nipple, but it yet lacks a model of > itself as a self. > > Is there agency? > It certainly acts on its environment relative to its values so there > is agency, not yet in its own mind, but assigned in the minds of other > observers. Are you suggesting here that the newborn has no intrinsic agency? That its agency exists only in the minds of observers? -gts From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jul 4 23:27:49 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:27:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A very surreal day Message-ID: <468C2CF5.3020009@pobox.com> Yeah. So. Um. You ever have one of those days where you're, like, checking Technorati to see if anyone has linked to singinst.org recently, and you come across a blog post which mentions that - - and as Buddha and Belldandy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are my witnesses, I swear that I am not making any of this up and moreover it checks out and doesn't look like a joke - - where was I? Right. So apparently there's this guy in New York whose name I can't remember ever hearing, and who doesn't seem to have ever emailed me, who's written and directed a play called: _Yudkowski Returns: The Rise And Fall And Rise Again of Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski_ "In a seemingly deserted island, Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski and his artificial intelligence drones and cohorts wage a war to keep their circular narrative from ending. Their only weapon? The hope that humanity can finally evolve. (90 min)" Written and directed by Bob Saietta (possibly a.k.a. Bobby Silverman). This has already had one run and is being brought back for another, at something called "The Pretentious Festival" at the Brick Theater in Brooklyn, NY: http://www.bricktheater.com/pretentious/ If you're going to be in New York on: Tue 7/24 8pm Tue 7/26 7:30pm Sat 7/28 3pm Sat 7/28 9pm Sun 7/29 3pm You can buy tickets for $10: http://www.theatermania.com/content/show.cfm/section/synopsis/show/133057 * Yudkowski Returns! reviewed by Robert Weinstein Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski, the lead character in Yudkowski Returns (The Rise And Fall And Rise Again Of Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski) wishes he were Japanese. He sits at a desk scattered with seemingly random paraphernalia, downloads episodes of Lost and analyzes the homoerotic subtext of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He orders Chinese food. He puts on his Psycho-Sociological Hat, dances around the theatre and leaps into the narcissistic void of his psyche created by a recent breakup. He restages significant moments while putting others in newfound contexts depending on his ability to understand them. And he is not alone. He has the audience, whom he addresses frequently and with a plastered-on smile, and he has The Assistant, a friendly, disheveled, and increasingly confused woman who is at different times his girlfriend, his girlfriend-as-ex, his confidante, and his conscience. Is she real? I'm not confident Dr. Yudkowski knows. But their isolation?his voluntary, hers more problematic?creates an incredibly complex relationship which plays out as they wait on the appearance of The Singularity, an Artificial Intelligence technology that can solve all of life's unsolvable problems. It makes sense of the nonsensical and will bring an end to all of humanity's conflicts as well as Dr. Yudkowski's isolation and, quite possibly, The Assistant's existence. [ Continued at: http://www.nytheatre.com/nytheatre/P07rev_02.htm#400 * Apparently I'm played by Patrick McCaffrey: "A charming assistant introduces the entrance of (cue the cheesy music...) Doctor Yudkowski, played by Patrick, who exudes all the charisma and appeal that Tom Cruise should have had in _Magnolia_." That was from the original blog post I found, at: http://tba-ny.blogspot.com/2007/07/bobby-silverman-my-nemesis-where-has.html I know what you're all wondering: "How does Eliezer look in the director's vision of what his life *should* be like?" Apparently I look like this: http://www.amrep.org/people/patrick.html * Since no one had the courtesy to notify me that a play had been produced about my life - and possibly Erin's, though I don't know if The Assistant is based on her - if anyone in New York goes to this, do please bring back some photos. Though it would probably appeal more to the taste of my enemies than my friends, unless you have a very liberal sense of humor. I used to describe myself as a D-list celebrity. But I guess that when they produce a play about your life, with your name in the title, and they don't bother to tell you, it means you've officially been promoted to a C-list celebrity. I think next I'm supposed to release a sex tape of myself or something - no wait, that's how you go from the B-list to the A-list. It's been a very surreal day. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From ben at goertzel.org Thu Jul 5 02:02:56 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:02:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A very surreal day In-Reply-To: <468C2CF5.3020009@pobox.com> References: <468C2CF5.3020009@pobox.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0707041902n4f692d67r2c27058b3078a89c@mail.gmail.com> Wow, that is hilarious!!! Someone has **got** to sneak a video camera in there, and post the thing on YouTube.... If I were free any of those days I would definitely take the train up to NY to check it out ;-) ben On 7/4/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Yeah. > > So. > > Um. > > You ever have one of those days where you're, like, checking > Technorati to see if anyone has linked to singinst.org recently, and > you come across a blog post which mentions that - > > - and as Buddha and Belldandy and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are my > witnesses, I swear that I am not making any of this up and moreover it > checks out and doesn't look like a joke - > > - where was I? Right. So apparently there's this guy in New York > whose name I can't remember ever hearing, and who doesn't seem to have > ever emailed me, who's written and directed a play called: > > _Yudkowski Returns: The Rise And Fall And Rise Again of Dr. Eliezer > Yudkowski_ > > "In a seemingly deserted island, Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski and his > artificial intelligence drones and cohorts wage a war to keep their > circular narrative from ending. Their only weapon? The hope that > humanity can finally evolve. (90 min)" > > Written and directed by Bob Saietta (possibly a.k.a. Bobby Silverman). > > This has already had one run and is being brought back for another, at > something called "The Pretentious Festival" at the Brick Theater in > Brooklyn, NY: > > http://www.bricktheater.com/pretentious/ > > If you're going to be in New York on: > > Tue 7/24 8pm > Tue 7/26 7:30pm > Sat 7/28 3pm > Sat 7/28 9pm > Sun 7/29 3pm > > You can buy tickets for $10: > > http://www.theatermania.com/content/show.cfm/section/synopsis/show/133057 > > * > > Yudkowski Returns! > reviewed by Robert Weinstein > > Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski, the lead character in Yudkowski Returns (The > Rise And Fall And Rise Again Of Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski) wishes he were > Japanese. He sits at a desk scattered with seemingly random > paraphernalia, downloads episodes of Lost and analyzes the homoerotic > subtext of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He orders Chinese food. He puts > on his Psycho-Sociological Hat, dances around the theatre and leaps > into the narcissistic void of his psyche created by a recent breakup. > He restages significant moments while putting others in newfound > contexts depending on his ability to understand them. And he is not alone. > > He has the audience, whom he addresses frequently and with a > plastered-on smile, and he has The Assistant, a friendly, disheveled, > and increasingly confused woman who is at different times his > girlfriend, his girlfriend-as-ex, his confidante, and his conscience. > Is she real? I'm not confident Dr. Yudkowski knows. But their > isolation?his voluntary, hers more problematic?creates an incredibly > complex relationship which plays out as they wait on the appearance of > The Singularity, an Artificial Intelligence technology that can solve > all of life's unsolvable problems. It makes sense of the nonsensical > and will bring an end to all of humanity's conflicts as well as Dr. > Yudkowski's isolation and, quite possibly, The Assistant's existence. > > [ Continued at: > http://www.nytheatre.com/nytheatre/P07rev_02.htm#400 > > * > > Apparently I'm played by Patrick McCaffrey: > > "A charming assistant introduces the entrance of (cue the cheesy > music...) Doctor Yudkowski, played by Patrick, who exudes all the > charisma and appeal that Tom Cruise should have had in _Magnolia_." > > That was from the original blog post I found, at: > > http://tba-ny.blogspot.com/2007/07/bobby-silverman-my-nemesis-where-has.html > > I know what you're all wondering: "How does Eliezer look in the > director's vision of what his life *should* be like?" Apparently I > look like this: > > http://www.amrep.org/people/patrick.html > > * > > Since no one had the courtesy to notify me that a play had been > produced about my life - and possibly Erin's, though I don't know if > The Assistant is based on her - if anyone in New York goes to this, do > please bring back some photos. Though it would probably appeal more > to the taste of my enemies than my friends, unless you have a very > liberal sense of humor. > > I used to describe myself as a D-list celebrity. But I guess that > when they produce a play about your life, with your name in the title, > and they don't bother to tell you, it means you've officially been > promoted to a C-list celebrity. I think next I'm supposed to release > a sex tape of myself or something - no wait, that's how you go from > the B-list to the A-list. > > It's been a very surreal day. > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jul 5 08:11:37 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:11:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Dawn launch (No turning back) Message-ID: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> Forwarding this, because it bounced. ----- Forwarded message from Amara Graps ----- From: Amara Graps Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 07:21:34 +0200 To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org, extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [wta-talk] Dawn launch (No turning back) Reply-To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List The decision has been made to begin fueling the rocket tanks Thursday, July 5, starting at 4 AM. Once fueling begins there is no option but to launch, since defueling and refueling requires a new tank that will not be available until November - beyond Dawn's last window for the next decade. Our launch window opens this Saturday just after 4 PM for 30 minutes then around the same time for following two days, after which we would have to stand down for 3 days as a radar ship (being repaired) gets into position for post-launch tracking off of the coast of West Africa to replace an AWACS aircraft that has been standing in for it. We may then have one or two more available launch days after that. Preparation Pics: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=173 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 _______________________________________________ wta-talk mailing list wta-talk at transhumanism.org http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From tyleremerson at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 14:13:34 2007 From: tyleremerson at gmail.com (Tyler Emerson) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 07:13:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Looking for PHP programmer to help finish SIAI Donor Network Message-ID: <632d2cda0707050713o33797731h655403d8c4c8ee97@mail.gmail.com> Are you experienced in PHP? I'm looking for someone to help finish the back-end PHP programming for the forthcoming SIAI Donor Network. Here's a preview: http://www.singinst.org/community/ http://www.singinst.org/community/donors_list.html http://www.singinst.org/community/tyleremerson_profile_main.html http://www.singinst.org/community/tyleremerson_favorites.html If you can help with this, please send me an email for details, tyleremerson at gmail.com. Thanks, Tyler -- Tyler Emerson Executive Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence P.O . Box 50182, Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA emerson at singinst.org | www.singinst.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Thu Jul 5 14:22:51 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:22:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Dawn launch (24 hour delay to Sunday) Message-ID: (new status) Given the thunderstorms in the area, and that the launch vehicle is not sufficiently cool today to begin to load the fuel and oxidizer, the launch has been delayed 24 hours to Sunday, ~4pm EST. That first opportunity will last ~30 minutes. The next two opportunities will follow on sequential days: July 9, and July 10, at about the same time. If Dawn has not launched by July 10, then there will be a stand-down of a few days while the launch team at Cape Canaveral works on the Phoenix mission spacecraft, to reduce the impact to their launch window, and while different ships for post-launch tracking move into position. Then Dawn opportunities will pick up again on July 14, and continue until July 19, if necessary. You can watch the launch over the web: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu Jul 5 16:13:16 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:13:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Article - robot thinks it's a rodent... Message-ID: <20070705091316.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.16c8e28dd9.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Jul 7 17:01:31 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 19:01:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Resignation as WTA Executive Director Message-ID: <470a3c520707071001m38a2429ao8a30b0dce891d8bd@mail.gmail.com> I have just offered my resignation as Executive Director of the WTA, for the reasons stated in my letter to the Board pasted below. I will stay on the Board. G. Friends, I have made the decision to resign as Executive Director, effective immediately. There are two main reasons: 1) My business is, slowly and painfully but steadily, beginning to take off. Achieving this has demanded nearly all my time and energy in the last few months, and I have been unable to dedicate sufficient time and energy to the WTA. I have often said to myself "next week", but work and financial pressures are increasing and, realistically, I do not think this may change before the end of the year at least. 2) I do have opinions, and at times strong opinions, about some of the issues frequently discussed on the public lists. It has been suggested that the Executive Director should be above the parts and refrain from supporting one or the other side in a public debate, since his words could be constructed as official positions of the WTA. I basically agree with this interpretation, and I do not intend to refrain from expressing my ideas and opinions. Therefore, this is the only possible course of action. I will, of course, stay on the Board and try to do my best. From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 7 21:49:19 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 14:49:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] aging in italy In-Reply-To: <20070705091316.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.16c8e28dd9.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <200707072209.l67M91x2008387@lily.ziaspace.com> Amara and our European friends might be interested in D'Emilio's take on aging in Europe: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul07/0,4670,AgingItaly,00.html Italy's Aged Turn to Foreigners for Care Saturday, July 07, 2007 By FRANCES D'EMILIO, Associated Press Writer ROME - As a police officer, Luigi Marzano was used to being in command. He still walks ramrod straight, but at 97 and deep into retirement, his memory is weakening and he has turned over command of his household to a virtual stranger half his age. Rita Duda, who left Ukraine in search of work, lays out caffe latte and cookies each day for Marzano's breakfast, shops for him, and, every afternoon after his nap accompanies him to a bench on the corner, which he shares with ladies and gentlemen in their 70s and 80s while their caretakers _ Ukrainians, Moldavians, Poles and Romanians _ catch up on gossip. Marzano is one of a swelling number of Italians entrusting themselves to an army of foreign workers from eastern Europe, South America, Asia and Africa who are doing what families here are increasingly can't or won't do _ take care of their elderly. Long life and low birthrates have conspired to change family life, which long had been the one institution Italians could count on while history rolled past, with its parade of conquerors and short-lived governments. Italy's demographics _ and Europe's as a whole _ give new meaning to the term "Old World." Twenty-four of the world's 25 oldest countries are in Europe, noted a joint report by the European Commission and AARP, a U.S. lobby for the elderly. Japan's population, with 27 percent of it older than 60 in 2005, is a shade grayer than Italy's 26 percent. Italian life expectancy is 78.3 years for men and 84 for women. But more significantly, Italy holds the world record for the highest percentage of what experts call the "old old." One out of every five elderly Italians is over 80. Meanwhile, the incentives to have children are few. Italians joke that by the time their children qualify for scant public day care, they are too old for it. Tax breaks for minor dependents are miserly. Costly housing makes it hard to give a child his or her own room. Italy, home to the Vatican and predominantly Catholic, legalized abortion in 1978, and Italians upheld the law in a 1981 referendum, despite fierce opposition by the Vatican to abortion. And Italians have long tended to ignore Vatican teaching forbidding contraception. Now, with so many living so long _ and with retirement possible as early as age 57 _ Italy is paying the price in medical care, pensions and social security, for having so few children. While decisions to have one or no children might make for easier lifestyles when young, a generation or two later the choice means fewer children and grandchildren to help the aged. "Without Rita, I wouldn't be able to manage," said Marzano, running his cane through his fingers and fretting about how he'll manage this summer with substitute home companions when Duda, a 48-year-old divorced woman, visits her family in Ukraine. Marzano has outlived his wife, sister, three brothers and a son. His other son lives in the neighborhood with his daughter-in-law, who is in poor health. On Thursday afternoons, when Duda is off, a granddaughter comes to keep him company. On Sundays, Duda's other day off, his son's family bring him lunch, but they don't stay with him to eat it, Marzano said. "I would have thought I would have lived with my son; I would never have thought that it would be like this," said Marzano. Duda and others, paid for by the elderly's children or by the elderly themselves, are Italy's fast-growing substitute for "assisted living" facilities, which are nearly nonexistent in this country. Putting grandma or grandpa in a nursing home when they no longer are self-sufficient hasn't caught on much here, possibly because Italians tend to distrust institutions. So the emphasis here remains on the home, even while home is ever more likely to mean home alone. In 1950, Italy had five adult children for every elderly parent. Now five has shrunk to a a statistical 1.5 and by 2050 there won't even be one adult child for every elderly person, said Antonio Golini, a demographer at Rome's La Sapienza University. So dependent have Italians become on the foreign caregivers that when the government offered an amnesty a few years ago for illegal immigrants, it placed no limits on the number of foreigners a family could employ if the workers cared for elderly. Golini has been crusading for years for Italians to have more children, accept more immigrants and work longer. "My terror is that we will reach old age abandoned," Golini, 69, said in an interview. Italy's "grayest" region is Liguria, in the northwest, where 27.5 percent of its population is over 65. There is a waiting list for a program providing the elderly with $475 a month to help pay for home companions. "Old people, and especially those who are alone and not independent, are going to be one of the emergencies Italy will have to face in the future," said Massimiliano Costa, Liguria's commissioner for social policy. Emilio Mortillo, a bioethicist at Aging Society, a think tank in Rome, pointed out that some parts of Italy's affluent north have more retirees than workers, and predicted that Italians will have to increasingly rely on immigrants to help them cope. But immigration is relatively new to Italy, and surveys show many Italians blame immigrants for crime. So some elderly, fearful of admitting foreigners to their homes, turn to another old fixture of Italy _ nuns of the Roman Catholic Church. Waiting for nuns to serve her dinner at the Pius X home for the aged in Rome, 83-year-old Maria Laura Riva De Filippis said her daughter didn't want a foreigner to care for her mother at home. "And rightly so. You hear so many stories about them, my daughter would say," said De Filippis. "My daughter said I could live with her, but she kept telling me: 'I leave for work at 8 a.m. and you'll be alone all day.'" Since nuns labor for God instead of a paycheck, room and board at homes for oldsters run by religious orders cost much less than at traditional nursing homes. Caring for the elderly as a business also makes economic sense for the nuns. When there were no longer enough children to fill the classrooms, the Disciples of Sisters of Eucharistic Jesus converted a nursery and elementary school in Rome's middle-class Garbatella neighborhood into a rest home. "Our mothers stayed at home caring for their mothers and their mothers-in-law," said Sister Maria Cecilia at the home. "Now women work and don't even have time to care for their own children." The residents, whom the nuns call "guests," pay $1,770 month _ modest compared with the United States where monthly costs in a large city can easily top $10,000. Ninety-year-old Italia Matteucci, elegant in a long pearl necklace, pearl stud earrings, a red cardigan and a wool plaid skirt, pays for her room in the former elementary school out of her monthly pension check. She had been living alone in a studio apartment but "I was afraid that they'd find me dead there some day," and so she turned to the nuns. Her 68-year-old daughter has health problems, and her two grandsons, in their 30s, rarely come either, said Matteucci. Many of the caregivers come from countries where families are large and the concept of abandoning oldsters is inconceivable. "In my country you don't see this," said Rosa Elena Floris, an Ecuadorean taking a course for home companions at Rome's Catholic Sacred Heart University. "We're always at the side" of the elderly. Floris cared for an Italian woman for eight years until she died at 89. "The woman had a son and a daughter, but she almost never saw them," recalled Floris. "They would call and say, 'Is everything OK? Did she take her medicine?'" When the university first offered the course, in 1999, only foreigners enrolled, said Dr. Flavia Caretta, a geriatrics specialist who runs the program. But this year's course had a sprinkling of Italians, suggesting they see a growth industry offering a career. The foreign caretakers earn about $1,500 monthly, handsome compared to wages in their homelands, or about 30 percent less if they live in and receive room and board. Among the remedies for aging societies are raising the retirement age to save on pensions, and encouraging bigger families. This year German lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 by 2012. Spain uses incentives to encourage people to work beyond 65. Poland, with one of Europe's lowest fertility rates, recently began a costly program of tax exemptions, longer maternity leaves and better preschool services to encourage bigger families. But Italy's center-left government, pressured by unions which make up much of Premier Romano Prodi's constituency, is going in the other direction. It has promised to undo the previous, conservative government's reform to raise the retirement age from 57 to 60. ___ Daniele Pinto in Rome contributed to this report. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jul 8 06:27:58 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:27:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again In-Reply-To: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200707080641.l686fXDS015196@lily.ziaspace.com> There is a long article about Keith in today's San Jose Merky News. Unlike his Palo Alto treatment, this one is relatively fair and balanced. It is about his efforts to get a pardon from Aaaahnold. Lets hope for the best on that. spike From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 8 07:16:53 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 09:16:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Dawn non-launch (delay to September/October) Message-ID: Hello! Some non-news about Dawn's launch. When I last gave a report, the launch was slipped to Sunday because of worry that the thunderstorms/lightning in the area would be too dangerous to fuel the tanks plus the tanks were too warm to begin. Then the launch date slipped to Monday because of continuing concern with the weather and the availability of the radar ship for post-launch tracking. However the ship got delayed and the next set of launch days in July were less favorable for giving enough data acquisition time at the targets (Vesta and Ceres). Therefore, a new launch window (about 30 days) of September/October, after other Cape Canaveral launch activities (Mars Phoenix, space shuttle) is now the focus for Dawn's launch. The later launch date gives more time at the targets, however the mission costs are building, and that window is in the middle of hurricane season, but the Dawn managers think that it is the best decision. I don't know if the fueling of the tanks were actually started and if Dawn is sitting, in the midst of the fueled tanks. Or not. I suspect the thunderstorms blocked the decision to begin the fueling, but I am unable to get official Dawn project email news here in Rome because our IFSI mail server has been down all weekend. All of this info through unofficial channels via Planetary Science Institute (M. Sykes). Ciao, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 8 11:21:09 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 13:21:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Dawn's Early Light: Ceres and Vesta Message-ID: In support of Dawn, to help answer the public's question: "Why Ceres and Vesta?" Here is one answer, some of which I would have said at the Dawn Science Symposium, if the original, original plan for everything held. Dawn's Early Light: Ceres and Vesta http://www.scientificblogging.com/amaragraps/dawns_early_light_ceres_and_vesta where I finish with : ----------- My Dawn Rocky Road Science List Given that it is summer, and I'm located in Italy, where gelato is a larger deity than Jupiter, here is my own rocky road list of science questions that I would like the Dawn mission to help answer. * Where is the snow line and hence the emergence of water in the formation of the inner solar system? * How common are low temperature, aqueous processes in the early solar system? * What heated the asteroids? * When did the heating, melting, and differentiation occur in Vesta? * Where and when did most of the asteroids in the asteroid belt go? * Was the growth of Ceres truncated by Jupiter? When? * How fast is the step from asteroid-sized planetesimals to full-sized planets? ----------- Good luck to us all for the upcoming September / October launch and the Dawn odyssey (*)! (*) Odyssey: 1. An extended adventurous voyage or trip. 2. An intellectual quest Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 8 21:14:57 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:14:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Faithfully honing the killer instinct" Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070708161016.021c19b8@satx.rr.com> Faithfully honing the killer instinct * Two years ago, Britons were horrified to discover that terrorist attacks in London were the work of home-grown fanatics. Now Ed Husain reveals his experience of how Islamism motivates violence ---------- * June 30, 2007 FOR children like me, growing up in Britain in the 1980s was not easy. The National Front was at its peak. I can still see a gang of shaven-headed, tattooed thugs standing tall above us, hurling abuse as we walked to the local library to return our books. Our head teacher, Susie Powlesland, and the other teachers raced to us, held our hands firmly and roared at the hate-filled bigots. "Go away! Leave us alone!" they would bellow to taunts of "Paki lovers" from the thugs. Little did I know then that one day I, too, would be filled with abhorrence of others. The colour-blind humanity of most of my teachers at Sir William Burrough primary school at Limehouse in east London, their strength in the face of tyranny, taught us lessons for the rest of our lives. Britain was our home, we were children of this soil and no amount of intimidation would change that; we belonged here. And yet, lurking in the background were forces that were preparing to seize the hearts and minds of Britain's Muslim children. I was the eldest of four, with a younger brother and twin sisters. My father was born in British India, my mother in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), and we children in Mile End in London. In ethnic terms I consider myself Indian. Somewhere in my family line there is also Arab ancestry. This mixed heritage of being British by birth, Asian by descent and Muslim by conviction was set to tear me apart in later life. After joining Tower Hamlets College in east London in my late teens, I became active in the institution's Islamic Society, managed by members of Young Muslim Organisation (UK), a youth wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamist party that has its headquarters in Pakistan. (Islamism refers to the belief Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion.) By secret ballot I was elected president. The college had a majority Muslim population and the Islamic Society had an extremely high profile. The events I organised attracted crowds of more than 200 students. In essence, I was running an Islamist front organisation operating on campus to recruit for the wider movement and maintain a strong Islamist presence. With the help of my members I was successful on both counts. Many students at college found the literalist approach of Wahhabism (Saudi fundamentalism) attractive and I soon saw several of my fellow students heading to jihad training in Afghanistan in response to Koranic verses urging Muslims to rise up against violence. That the violence in question was of pagans in Mecca in the seventh century might not offer obvious justification for a so-called jihad in the modern world, but who was I to argue with my literalist members? Through YMO, we had introduced many of them to 20th century Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood intellectual Sayyid Qutb's Milestones; had Qutb not called for a jihad against Muslim rulers on the grounds that they were non-believers? Qutb's Milestones, combined with Wahhabi literalism, made a potent and dangerous cocktail. In the multicultural Britain of the '80s and '90s, we were free to practise our religion and develop our culture as we wanted. Our teachers left us alone, so long as we didn't engage in public expressions of homophobia or intimidation of non-Muslims. But Britishness and the British values of democracy, tolerance, respect, compromise and pluralism had no meaning for us. Like me, most of the students at college had no real bond with mainstream Britain. Yes, we attended a British educational institution in London, but there was nothing particularly British about it. It might as well have been in Cairo or Karachi. Cut off from Britain, isolated from the Eastern culture of our parents, Islamism provided us with a purpose and a place in life. More significantly, we felt as though we were the pioneers, at the cutting edge of this new global development of confronting the West in its own backyard. My interest in Hizb ut-Tahrir (The Liberation Party, www.hizb.org.uk) came at a critical time. At college there were others who were also coming under its influence. There were seven of us, all members of YMO or sympathisers, who wanted to know what the Hizb was really about. Wahhabis had put out information that the group was deviant in creedal matters. Many in the East London Mosque believed Hizb members were Shia, and Sunni Islamists believed them to be infidels. Arab Islamists familiar with the Hizb from the Middle East suggested the group members were American agents. Who were they really? From its literature and by asking members of the Hizb I learned that in 1952 Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani, founder of the Hizb, had applied to the Jordanian interior ministry to establish a political party with Islam as its ideology. The Hizb was, from its inception, committed to establishing an Islamic state dedicated to propagating its ideology. The Jordanian monarchy rejected the application on the grounds that the Hizb was committed to overthrowing the king. Uncowed, it gained momentum in neighbouring Arab countries and was eventually outlawed in every country in which it operated. Its aims were considered seditious, its plans destructive and its politics iconoclastic. And yet the Hizb survived and thrived in the prisons of the Arab world, filled with political detainees of various Islamist groups. Two men, Farid Kasim and Jamal Harwood, were central figures inside the Hizb in Britain. Farid was a Sheffield University-trained town planner and worked for Islington Borough Council. Jamal was a Canadian who had converted to Islam and worked as an accountant with J.P. Morgan in London. Along with Salim Fredericks, another long-time member, these were the men who introduced the Hizb to British Muslims. Under their leadership and the guidance of Hizb's charismatic pugnacious leader at the time, the Syrian-born cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed (who had been expelled from Saudi Arabia), the Hizb targeted the Tower Hamlets borough with determination. For the Hizb, Tower Hamlets was Britain's most densely populated Muslim area. I would spend hours in discussion with members of the Hizb, questioning them on matters ranging from the dialectical materialism of Marxists to abstruse points in Muslim jurisprudence. Whatever questions I asked, Hizb members always had answers. Although its members had addressed the students at Tower Hamlets College before, their reception had been lukewarm until I, as Islamic Society president, offered them direct access to the Islamised youth on campus: a fact that escaped me at the time. Sensing a fertile recruiting ground, the Hizb moved key members into a flat in Chicksand House, a two-minute walk from Brick Lane. Within weeks the flat became the Hizb's headquarters in Tower Hamlets, housing members such as the Kenyan radical Abdullah Hameed, who studied at Brunel University, and the undergraduate Burhan Haneef as well as others from Greenwich University. Burhan, whom we called Bernie, was studying politics at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies. Originally from Slough in Berkshire, he was an exceptionally warm, witty, and wayward member of the Hizb. His door was always open to us. Following long sessions with Bernie and another Hizb member, Patrick Ghani, who was studying at the Whitechapel-based London Hospital Medical College, I and seven members of the Islamic Society had created a separate Hizb faction at college. No longer was I just the president of the Islamic Society: I was also the local leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The concept of the Muslim nation, as opposed to disparate ethnic communities, was key. To the Hizb, Indians, Malaysians, Turks, Indonesians, Arabs and Africans were all part of a single, global Muslim nation, an ummah. We were weak because we were divided. Muslim lands (not countries) were poor because the Muslims of Sudan, Somalia, Bangladesh and Kashmir did not share in the oil wealth of the Gulf countries. Oil, we argued, was a gift from God to Muslims: all Muslims, and not just Gulf Arabs. Muslims were one nation under one God. Nabhani argued for the complete destruction of the existing political order, particularly in Muslim countries, so that it could be replaced by a caliphate. If we had such an Islamic state, then the caliph would send the Islamic army to slaughter the Serbs: this was was our answer to the Balkan conflict. The international community said it refused to arm Bosnian Muslims to prevent an escalation of the conflict. But we knew there was a conspiracy to reduce the number of Muslims in Europe. Bosnia acted as a catalyst for extremism among large numbers of young Muslims in Britain. It was a serious political wake-up call for hundreds of us, semi-radicalised by the emotional Islamism of Jamaat-e-Islami but given a clear, radical outlook on life by Hizb. On university campuses across the country our shabab or party activists were creating a storm. In 1992-93, BBC television's Newsnight program covered our rise. Local newspapers in Britain, including the Evening Standard, wrote about the Hizb's activities. The Jewish Chronicle campaigned against the Hizb. We circulated newspaper cuttings among the shabab and celebrated our prominence. All other Islamist groups looked on bemused. How had the Hizb raised its profile so quickly and so successfully? Boosted by the intense media interest, we went from strength to strength. Nothing gave us greater motivation than to hear our ideas being amplified in the national media, reaching new audiences of millions. To us it did not matter whether the coverage was favourable or otherwise. We were resigned to biased reporting, but we knew that there was a crucial constituency of Muslims who would look on us as their leaders, their spokesmen against the attacks of the infidels. It was this recognition we needed more than anything else. The British media provided us with it and more: Arab dictators were increasingly worried about the rising profile of a group they had banned four decades ago. Britain breathed new life into the Hizb. When Yasser Arafat and king Hussein of Jordan visited London, our shabab were there in large numbers, calling for the removal from office of these and other Arab leaders. We were concerned about Omar's application for political asylum. I worried that the Hizb's high profile in Britain might jeopardise the chances of him staying in Britain. I raised this with Bernie, too. "Oh no," he said. "On the contrary. The British are like snakes; they manoeuvre carefully. They need Omar in Britain. Most likely Omar will be the ambassador for the khilafah (caliphate) here or leave to reside in the Islamic state. The kuffar (infidels) know that: allowing Omar to stay in Britain will give them a good start, a diplomatic advantage, when they have to deal with the Islamic state. "Having Omar serves them well for the future. Britain's domestic security agency MI5 knows exactly what we're doing, what we're about, and yet it has, in effect, given us the green light to operate in Britain." Bernie's words about the intelligence service proved to be correct. It was not until the events of July 7, 2005 (the day of the London suicide bombings by home-grown Islamic terrorists), that British intelligence admitted it had been a mistake to allow Islamists of all shades to put down serious ideological roots among Britain's Muslims. On a personal level, my relationship with God had deteriorated. If we were working to establish God's rule on earth, as we claimed, then Hizb activists were the most unlikely candidates God could have chosen. My comrades were heady and headstrong young people. We were ecstatic at the thought that soon a real Islamic state would emerge in the Middle East, reverse history, and allow a return to the glory days of Islam. Yet as I had become more active in the Hizb, my inner consciousness of God had hit an all-time low. Externally I portrayed signs of piety to maintain a standing among my target audience, but I was no longer an observant Muslim. We sermonised about the need for Muslims to return to Islam, but many of the shabab did not know how to pray. I witnessed at least four new converts to Islam at different university campuses, convinced of the superiority of the Islamic political ideology as an alternative to capitalism but lacking basic knowledge of worship. Within three weeks of their conversion they were lecturing others about the need for a khilafah, the role of the future Muslim army and the duties of citizens in the future Islamic state. But when it came to reciting the Koran or maintaining basic Muslim etiquette, they were clueless. When Patrick and Bernie came to ask me about basic verses of the Koran for recital in prayers after they had delivered sermons at prayer rooms in universities, I began to realise how little these people knew about the Koran. I was getting older and the Hizb seemed suddenly like pretentious, counterfeit intellectualism. Despite huge political success, I despised myself for appearing pious and upright in Muslim eyes when all the while I knew that there was a vacuum in my soul where God should be. At home, I no longer knew I had a family. By day I was active on campus and in the evenings I kept myself away from my parents and siblings. I could not bear discussions with my parents any longer. All subjects returned to what my father called my "going astray to the enemies of Islam". Those words angered me. My life was consumed by fury, inner confusion, a desire to dominate everything and my abject failure to be a good Muslim. I had started out on this journey wanting more Islam and ended up losing its essence. Nevertheless, in public I was still the mighty leader of the Hizb on campus, the challenger of kuffar in the name of Islam, the leader of Muslims. I went around college with my Hizb friend Majid Nawaz (who would later be tortured in the notorious jails of Cairo after advocating Hizb's extremist ideas in Egypt during his Arabic language placement year) and many of our new recruits, maintaining a visible presence and making ourselves available to the ummah. Of the many faces I encountered on a daily basis, there was one belonging to a girl called Faye that did what mine used to do a lot: smile. As an Islamist I had lost my ability to smile. Slowly, we became very good friends. Faye was no ordinary girl: her genuine and illuminating smile, caring eyes, her endearing face with its olive complexion and her warm ways drew me to her. I discovered that we had identical ancestral and social backgrounds, and a common interest in learning Arabic. We also shared a desire to travel. The new threshold of our relationship was to mark a milestone in many ways. We would write to each other and Faye's letters and verses spoke of a God that was close, loving, caring, facilitating, forgiving and merciful. Faye was close to God: she prayed regularly. I, by contrast, believed in a God who was full of vengeance, a legislator, a controller, a punisher. I could not envisage a future without Faye. I marshalled sufficient courage to write and ask if she would consider me for her husband. She paused for thought for a week and eventually said yes, but on condition that we both complete our studies and pursue careers. Love illuminated beyond all expectations. I now started to spend more time studying with her in the town hall library across the road from the college building. One afternoon a new recruit to the Hizb rushed over to ask me to go to the college immediately. Some black Christian boys had been hogging the pool table and were refusing to let a group of Muslims play. Things could get nasty. I rushed over to find a stand-off involving a dozen pool cues and a roomful of injured pride. How dare the inferior Christians refuse Muslims a game? We spoke about jihad but we never anticipated real violence. Not yet, anyway. It was not party policy to engage in violence before the caliphate came about. We believed that fighting as individuals was futile: our aims were greater. An army would fight entire nations with the military force of the Islamic state, not by vigilante gang warfare. One afternoon as I sat in the library, buried in my books, I heard voices outside. On the other side of the street a small crowd had gathered and Dave Gomer, the student affairs manager, was pushing people away. Within minutes an ambulance arrived and from where I stood, I could see a boy lying on the ground next to a pool of blood: one of the Christian boys who had been involved in the row over the pool table. Majid and I left the scene with heavy hearts. We both knew that whatever had happened at college, as Hizb activists we were responsible. It was we who had encouraged Muslim fervour, a sense of separation from others, a belief that Muslims were worthier than other humans. And those ideas had been inculcated in us by Hizb. Majid had seen the whole thing. Apparently the boy, a Christian student of Nigerian extraction, had been throwing his weight around and being offensive towards Muslims and about their attitudes. Someone had phoned Saeed, a local black Muslim and Hizb supporter, who turned up within 15 minutes. The pair confronted each other outside. The black boy drew a knife. Saeed remained calm, looked the boy in the eye and said, "Put that knife away or I will have to kill you." The boy did not respond. Perhaps he thought Saeed was bluffing. Saeed walked closer and warned him again. Exactly what happened next is unclear, but within seconds Saeed had pulled out a dagger and thrust it into the boy's chest. This was murder. And had I not been with Faye in the library, I would probably have somehow been involved. It was a narrow escape. Dismayed, Majid went to see Omar Bakri and gave him a full explanation of what had happened, explaining that Saeed had acted in self-defence and asking Omar to stand beside the college's Muslims. Instead the Hizb leadership issued a condemnation of what had happened, saying that it was a non-violent party. This myth was swallowed by investigators who never really understood the seriousness of the Hizb's form of violence. Even today, this is a primary reason for Western failure in the war on terror: an innate inability to understand the Islamist psyche. That murder, the direct result of Hizb's ideas, served as a wake-up call for me. Now, every time I saw a leaflet with Hizb's flag and masthead posted above images of the globe, I felt nauseous. Soon Saeed was arrested, charged, and convicted of murder. Just as I had become a member of the Hizb over a period of time, my departure from the organisation did not occur on a specific date. My first move away was to dissociate myself from the halaqah or local branch, a move prompted by the taking of an innocent life, Omar Bakri's subsequent deceit and my horror when I realised how poisonous was the atmosphere I had helped create. Most important of these was the murder: the Hizb's ideas had led to the belief that the life of a kafir, or unbeliever, was of little consequence in achieving Muslim dominance. I could not bear to be associated with such ideas any longer. I was frightened of where they might lead. I had advocated the ideas of Muslim domination, confrontation and jihad, never for one moment thinking that their catastrophic consequences would reach my doorstep. I had completely confused Islamism with Islam. Copyright Ed Husain, 2007 This is an edited extract from The Islamist by Ed Husain (Penguin Australia, $24.95). From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun Jul 8 23:04:12 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:04:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Neuroscience Question In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070708161016.021c19b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <740687.14990.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have a geeky question. Do the neurons of different major reasons of the brain differ significantly in physical structure? For example, do temporal lobe neurons have a significantly different cellular anatomy than neurons in the cerebellum? Or are the anatomies not significantly different? If I'm not mistaken, different regions are dominated by the activities of different neurotransmitters, but is that the only significant difference? Or are the various high-level functionalities (eg. vision, memory, motor-function) different and discrete precisely because of their *order* within the final meta-algorithm that is the complete mind? Jeffrey Herrlich ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ From neilh at caltech.edu Sun Jul 8 23:33:34 2007 From: neilh at caltech.edu (Neil Halelamien) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:33:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Article - robot thinks it's a rodent... In-Reply-To: <20070705091316.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.16c8e28dd9.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20070705091316.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.16c8e28dd9.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Having a localization algorithm based on place fields isn't quite the same as "thinking like a rodent." That said, I wonder what's so novel about this research that's been responsible for it has been getting so much press recently... It's not like it's the first time somebody's used place fields for robot navigation: http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pubs/pub_1873.html http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040120 On 7/5/07, kevin at kevinfreels.com wrote: > > > http://www.24x7updates.com/articles/20070705/robot_with_simulated_rat_brain_thinks_it_s_a_rodent-id-106439.html > > Thought this was interesting. The big question of course, is that if this > robot thinks and acts like a rodent and you can't tell the behaviour apart, > does it qualify for the sames humane treatment we are supposed to give to > animals? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 00:54:41 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:54:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dawn's Early Light: Ceres and Vesta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7/8/07, Amara Graps wrote: > ...here is my own rocky road list of science > questions that I would like the Dawn mission to help answer. > > * Where is the snow line and hence the emergence of water in the > formation of the inner solar system? < snip> This is one of my questions as well. Well, sort of. I'm interested in primordial methane and other hydrocarbon species. I want to know how much of these were accreted during the earth's formation. Some years ago I discovered the dispute over the origins of the earth's "paleo"hydrocarbon inventory -- you know, oil, gas, coal, tar sands, oil shale, etc. Soviet theory, adopted (if not plagiarized) by Cornel's Thomas Gold, theorized a primordial origin, while the conventional (western) view posited a paleobiological origin, ie the "fossil" fuel idea. I came to favor the primordial origin, and tried to find out just how much primordial hydrocarbon had been accreted into the primordial earth. This led me to look into the process by which the solar system formed from the ejecta of novae and supenovae. As I understand it, local ejecta density from multiple sources increases to a point where gravitational forces come to dominate. The "cloud" begins to "infall"(ie contract), spin, and heat up. The interaction of the forces and particles forms the material into a disc. As the infalling, spinning, and heating continue, the constituent material is "processed", simultaneously thermally fractionating and physically clumping together, forming a spatial distribution of "particles" of diverse sizes and compositions. This was an ongoing process featuring an ever increasing particle size, starting with molecules and "dust", and ending with a star, planetary bodies, and a remnant of the starting materials. When the bulk of the starting material had been "swept up", the infalling and heating effectively ended, leaving us with the solar system as we know it. What I learned regarding the formation of the solar system gave sharper focus to my question about primordial hydrocarbon inclusion in the forming earth. I then had a notion of the factors upon which the answer would depend. Which seemed to be: (1) Quantity and variety of hydrocarbon species in of the starting materials, and their thermal characteristics (freezing and boiling points, and, to a lesser extent, their decomposition temperature); (2) The time dependent radial thermal gradient in the protoplanetary disc; (3) The time dependent spatial distribution of hydrocarbon species (varies over time as a result of thermally driven fractionation) in the protoplanetary disc. (4) The time dependency and "clumping" behavior of the range of smaller bodies which eventually fuse to form the planetary bodies. You see, the gravitational infalling heats up the protoplanetary disc, creating a radial thermal gradient -- hottest at r=0, and decreasing outward. Volatile species sublimate and "boil off" outward in the disc. (Thus the rocky inner planets and the outer gas giants.) This takes time. Meanwhile, non-volatiles and ices(solidified volatiles) are clumping to form ever larger bodies, which, it would seem to me, would entrap volatiles, protecting/preventing them from boil-off. The larger the body, the greater the protection. So, regarding the inclusion of hydrocarbons in the primordial earth, it would seem there were these two processes working against each other: disc heating which drives volatiles radially outward in the disc, and particle "clumping" which tends to trap volatiles in the interiors of ever-larger"particles"/bodies despite ambient disc temperatures otherwise sufficient to boil off unprotected volatiles. And that's where I left it. Sorry about no links. It's been a few years since I explored this matter. Not sure why I chose to write this. Hope it's not too tedious. Maybe someone out there can help with filling in the blanks. Life is grand. -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From joseph at josephbloch.com Mon Jul 9 01:25:27 2007 From: joseph at josephbloch.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 21:25:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again In-Reply-To: <200707080641.l686fXDS015196@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> <200707080641.l686fXDS015196@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <099301c7c1c8$08d86d90$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> There's a relatively brief story from the Saturday paper here: http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6322465 (I'm guessing the longer article from the Sunday paper will be available on the web tomorrow.) Joseph http://www.josephbloch.com > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 2:28 AM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again > > > > There is a long article about Keith in today's San Jose Merky News. Unlike > his Palo Alto treatment, this one is relatively fair and balanced. It is > about his efforts to get a pardon from Aaaahnold. Lets hope for the best on > that. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 9 01:43:09 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:43:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again In-Reply-To: <099301c7c1c8$08d86d90$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> Message-ID: <200707090153.l691rajY018034@lily.ziaspace.com> > Joseph Bloch: > There's a relatively brief story from the Saturday paper here: > > http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6322465 This is a shortened version, perhaps 20% of the text that was in Saturday's dead trees version of the Merc. I don't know where to find a full text online version of that article. I didn't get today's (Sunday's) paper. Lets see if the governator will terminate Keith's sentence or grant a paaahdon. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:25 PM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: Re: [ExI] keith in the news again > > There's a relatively brief story from the Saturday paper here: > > http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6322465 > > (I'm guessing the longer article from the Sunday paper will be available > on > the web tomorrow.) > > Joseph > http://www.josephbloch.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike > > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 2:28 AM > > To: 'ExI chat list' > > Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again > > > > > > > > There is a long article about Keith in today's San Jose Merky News. > Unlike > > his Palo Alto treatment, this one is relatively fair and balanced. It > is > > about his efforts to get a pardon from Aaaahnold. Lets hope for the > best > on > > that. > > > > spike > > From amara at amara.com Mon Jul 9 13:49:41 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:49:41 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Dawn's Early Light: Ceres and Vesta Message-ID: Dear Jeff, In your description, I didn't see the emphasis on the condensation sequence that should be there, and I think your time sequence is not really in order. The molecules didn't form during the planet forming part, but much before, and were incorporated into the solids that became the planetesimals, that became the embryos, that became the planets. After the molecular cloud collapses (triggered by a supernova or few, or some other kind of 'shock') to form the "solar blob", which becomes then a "protostar+ gas/dust disk (because angular moment is transferred out, while material transferred in), which becomes a star+gas/dust disk (fusion has turned on in the protostar), then we have a solar nebula, where solids form dependent on the temperature and pressure profile of the nebula, which is time-dependent, as the nebula disk cools too. So one sees a molecule formation pattern as a function of heliocentric distance and time. It's very model dependent, as you can imagine. I say that I would like to know where was snow line during our solar system formation, which you interpreted as a large unknown. The physical process _is_ known, clear, and well-defined, but what is not known well is the temperature and thickness of the solar nebula at the time of the condensation sequence. There are many solar nebula models out giving temperature and pressure estimates. ------------- This page talks about the condensation sequence: http://cosserv3.fau.edu/~cis/AST2002/Lectures/C5/Trans/Trans.html Condensation: In solar nebula - dust and gas condense to form grains of solid matter Condensation: gas atoms stick together to form grains * allows smallest grains to grow quickly * less effective as grains gets larger Type of matter that can condense depends on temperature of solar nebula Condensation Sequence: Which types of materials can condense from a gas depends on the temperature * the lower the temperature, the lower the density of material that can condense * $T < 1500degK, (1250degC) - only refractory (ie. high melting point) materials can condense ---> high density materials ---> e.g. metals, metal oxides * $T<1000degK, (750degC) - high & medium melting point materials condense ---> medium and high density materials ---> e.g. silicates (rocky material) * $T<150degK (100degC) - volatile (ie. low melting point) AND refractory materials can condense ---> low, medium and high density materials ---> e.g. ices of water, ammonia, methane Temperature of solar nebula decreases with increasing distance from proto-Sun ---> Close to proto-Sun: only refractory materials (eg. metallic grains) condense ---> Medium distance from proto-Sun: silicate (rocky) & metallic grains condense ---> Furthest from proto-Sun: volatile and refractory materials ie. ice, silicate & metallic grains condense Also: solar nebula cools with time: Close to proto-Sun: * First metallic grains condense * Later metallic AND silicate grains condense ------------- Another facet I didn't see in your description is why there are terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, in exactly that order as a function of distance from the Sun. The solar system's structure has a very good logic behind, that builds further on the earlier steps of the condensation sequence. The refractory molecules, volatile molecules, etc. form in their particular locations based on the solar nebula temperature profile, and they form planets and hold gases (atmospheres) based on what body's gravity can hold that molecule at that particular temperature. Jupiter with its solid core and its location could attract hydrogen and helium and all of those light gases, because at that temperature further from the Sun, the molecules do not have enough kinetic energy to escape from proto-Jupiter's gravity. So it builds and grows into a gas giant. Earth could not hold hold a hydrogen atmosphere.. the molecules there have too much kinetic energy and overcome proto-Earth's gravity immediately. And the idea hold for the other planets. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jul 9 13:43:01 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 06:43:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Neuroscience Question In-Reply-To: <740687.14990.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <826717.62378.qm@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sorry, I need to clarify. I realize that there are various cell types *within* the macro-regions (eg. glial cells, mirror neurons, etc.) But what I'm interested to know is whether there is significant (cellular) anatomical differences *between* the macro-regions? For example, are the mirror neurons in one macro-region significantly different from the mirror neurons in a different macro-region? And if not, then is it the "order of activation" if you will, that accounts for the different functionalities? Jeffrey Herrlich --- A B wrote: > I have a geeky question. Do the neurons of different > major reasons of the brain differ significantly in > physical structure? For example, do temporal lobe > neurons have a significantly different cellular > anatomy than neurons in the cerebellum? Or are the > anatomies not significantly different? If I'm not > mistaken, different regions are dominated by the > activities of different neurotransmitters, but is > that > the only significant difference? Or are the various > high-level functionalities (eg. vision, memory, > motor-function) different and discrete precisely > because of their *order* within the final > meta-algorithm that is the complete mind? > > Jeffrey Herrlich > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Need a vacation? Get great deals > to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. > http://travel.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ From george at betterhumans.com Mon Jul 9 14:59:54 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:59:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again In-Reply-To: <200707090153.l691rajY018034@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <099301c7c1c8$08d86d90$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> <200707090153.l691rajY018034@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Fingers are crossed. -G From scerir at libero.it Mon Jul 9 18:35:19 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 20:35:19 +0200 Subject: [ExI] test References: <200707072209.l67M91x2008387@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <001b01c7c257$e7f16a10$52ba1f97@archimede> test http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL0989530020070709 http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSSP14117220070430?feedType=RSS http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSPAR05104120070531 http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1883294.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1521253.htm http://www.enn.com/globe.html?id=1612 From tyleremerson at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 00:20:27 2007 From: tyleremerson at gmail.com (Tyler Emerson) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:20:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] When is it Optimal to Launch a Friendly AI? Message-ID: <4692D0CB.5070307@gmail.com> From Seth Baum at the SIAI Blog: http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/07/09/when-is-it-optimal-to-launch-a-friendly-ai/ From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Jul 10 04:39:50 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 23:39:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Resources for young minds Message-ID: <000c01c7c2ac$5b170ff0$660fa8c0@kevin> I am looking on the internet for some nice free video and/or interactive resources for young minds. Specifically I am searching for animations which put things into perspective and show just how complex the cosmos is. For example, I saw a show on the Science channel once that showed how the Earth's orbit wobbles over time, and how the entire solar system wobbles through the galactic plane over time. I've also seen excellent representations of leaving the Earth and going outwards to the point where thousands of galaxies are simply points of light which keep shrinking. Other things I am after are things which do a good job putting time and numbers into perspective to help kids (and many adults I know) grasp the difference between 1000 years, 10,000, 100,000 and millions of years. Small perspectives are good as well. Anything that can help people to understand the smallness of atoms, the space between them, and what "nano" really means would be great. Anything that shows evolution as a process and allows interaction and random (or non-random) mutation through multiple generations would be neat too. I would like to gather as many links to good material like this and put together a blog so it can all be found in one place. Any good. If it is more acceptabel to email me offlist that's fine as well. Thanks in advance! Kevin Freels -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Jul 10 04:41:29 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 23:41:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] test Message-ID: <002601c7c2ac$95c3f780$660fa8c0@kevin> Am I bouncing? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Tue Jul 10 05:58:46 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:58:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Psi quantum observation experiment References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070628175620.022251d8@satx.rr.com><02a201c7ba11$174e3440$10074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070629010300.02206c30@satx.rr.com><02b901c7ba15$99c36ef0$10074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070629013916.022a8188@satx.rr.com><02fe01c7ba1e$99936f30$10074e0c@MyComputer><62c14240706290450q741024fbt9b8e134cce88623d@mail.gmail.com><002501c7baf7$f0638190$d8901f97@archimede> <009601c7bb37$b891b260$1c044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <003901c7c2b7$63ab1a70$0f921f97@archimede> John K Clark wrote (about 10 days ago): > So what has changed after more than a century? > Not one God damn thing! A more unproductive area > of "research" you could not find. I understand. The area seems to be unproductive. But let me quote a quantish theorist [1][2]. 'Scientists need to stop wasting time and resources on attempts to prove the already proven existence of psychic phenomena and concentrate more on determining how it works.' I think that quote is rather extreme. I do not think it is 'already proven'. But I wish to read simple and clean experiments performed. I'm very surprised that Dean Radin is, after all these years, one of the very few having performed interferometric experiments. s. [1] http://thisquantumworld.com/wordpress/2007/07/01/the-scientific-fallacy/ [2] Not sure quantum theorists can talk about psi things, since also QT has unexplained effects (vector potentials, etc.), not to mention 'subjective' interpretations and 'post-selections' of states. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 10 06:48:38 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:48:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi quantum observation experiment In-Reply-To: <003901c7c2b7$63ab1a70$0f921f97@archimede> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070628175620.022251d8@satx.rr.com> <02a201c7ba11$174e3440$10074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070629010300.02206c30@satx.rr.com> <02b901c7ba15$99c36ef0$10074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070629013916.022a8188@satx.rr.com> <02fe01c7ba1e$99936f30$10074e0c@MyComputer> <62c14240706290450q741024fbt9b8e134cce88623d@mail.gmail.com> <002501c7baf7$f0638190$d8901f97@archimede> <009601c7bb37$b891b260$1c044e0c@MyComputer> <003901c7c2b7$63ab1a70$0f921f97@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070710014303.023626a8@satx.rr.com> At 07:58 AM 7/10/2007 +0200, Serafino wrote: >But let me quote a quantish theorist [1][2]. >'Scientists need to stop wasting time and resources >on attempts to prove the already proven existence >of psychic phenomena and concentrate more on >determining how it works.' > >[1] >http://thisquantumworld.com/wordpress/2007/07/01/the-scientific-fallacy/ Sadly, this quantish person says: "As another example of how scientists tend to handle unwelcome data, let's look at the reaction to Schwartz's publication of The Afterlife Experiments. In my view, Schwartz' results are proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, of life after death." I had the unhappy experience of ploughing with gritted teeth and rising gorge through Schwartz's appalling book. The more interesting parapsychologists I spoke to tended to reject his supposed scientific work (of that time), sometimes with disdain and even contempt, to my relief. On the other hand, some of his quite recent attempts at triple blind mediumship does show some promise. It's all in the details. Damien Broderick From jonkc at att.net Tue Jul 10 16:47:45 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:47:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] High resolution MRI References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070628175620.022251d8@satx.rr.com><02a201c7ba11$174e3440$10074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070629010300.02206c30@satx.rr.com><02b901c7ba15$99c36ef0$10074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070629013916.022a8188@satx.rr.com><02fe01c7ba1e$99936f30$10074e0c@MyComputer><62c14240706290450q741024fbt9b8e134cce88623d@mail.gmail.com><002501c7baf7$f0638190$d8901f97@archimede><009601c7bb37$b891b260$1c044e0c@MyComputer><003901c7c2b7$63ab1a70$0f921f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070710014303.023626a8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002701c7c312$18615c90$12084e0c@MyComputer> Some scientists at Duke University have made a MRI image of a mouse brain with "100,000 times higher resolution than a clinical MRI scan". 100,000! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070709145329.htm John K Clark From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jul 11 02:54:44 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:54:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Power of Intelligence Message-ID: <46944674.6070204@pobox.com> http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/07/10/the-power-of-intelligence/ -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Wed Jul 11 04:05:51 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:05:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Power of Intelligence In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070710223114.0222bdd8@satx.rr.com> References: <46944674.6070204@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070710223114.0222bdd8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4694571F.7050201@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:54 PM 7/10/2007 -0700, Eli wrote: > >> http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/07/10/the-power-of-intelligence/ > > > "If you saw a movie of a nuclear explosion going off, and you were told > an Earthly life form had done it, you would never in your wildest dreams > imagine that the Soft Pink Things could be responsible. After all, Soft > Pink Things aren't radioactive." > > Not until after the nuclear explosion, anyway. But those were the Soft > Yellowish Things, I guess. And in Australia and the Pacific, the Soft > Black or Brownish Things. > > Not your point, I know. But a point. That's what I get for thinking in cliches. Fixed. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jul 11 04:47:31 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:47:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] snow in argentina and birthday greetings In-Reply-To: <001b01c7c257$e7f16a10$52ba1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <200707110459.l6B4xPY5005917@lily.ziaspace.com> Snow in Argentina for the first time since Woodrow Wilson occupied the white house: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286484.stm And South Africa saw some rare snow too: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2777696020070627 People perished. So if we decide humans are causing climate change and that the planet is warming, are we then liable for these cold snaps? Who? Those who are not doing their share to contribute to the warming? Do we have one population responsible for heat deaths and another responsible for cold deaths? spike Happy Birthday Anders Sandberg! From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 10:08:32 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:38:32 +0930 Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again In-Reply-To: References: <099301c7c1c8$08d86d90$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> <200707090153.l691rajY018034@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0707110308j4d442b3cnc485c311294c863d@mail.gmail.com> A bit of Keith Henson trivia, btw... I've been reading the 30th aniversary edition of The Selfish Gene (by Richard Dawkins, of course). In the notes to page 198, refering to his original sentence "blind faith can justify anything", Keith gets a mention for coining the term "Memoids". I'd be pretty happy with a mention in The Selfish Gene! Emlyn On 10/07/07, George Dvorsky wrote: > Fingers are crossed. > > -G > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From amara at amara.com Wed Jul 11 13:27:36 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:27:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Dawn's Early Light: Ceres and Vesta Message-ID: Dear Jeff, You might like this too. It is an excellent overview. Montmerle, Thierry; Augereau, Jean-Charles; Chaussidon, Marc; Gounelle, Mathieu; Marty, Bernard; Morbidelli, Alessandro 2006: "Solar System Formation and Early Evolution: the First 100 Million Years" Earth, Moon and Planets 37 http://www.obs-nice.fr/morby/papers/EMP1.pdf Ciao, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From neilh at caltech.edu Wed Jul 11 19:54:38 2007 From: neilh at caltech.edu (Neil Halelamien) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:54:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] High resolution MRI In-Reply-To: <002701c7c312$18615c90$12084e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070628175620.022251d8@satx.rr.com> <02b901c7ba15$99c36ef0$10074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070629013916.022a8188@satx.rr.com> <02fe01c7ba1e$99936f30$10074e0c@MyComputer> <62c14240706290450q741024fbt9b8e134cce88623d@mail.gmail.com> <002501c7baf7$f0638190$d8901f97@archimede> <009601c7bb37$b891b260$1c044e0c@MyComputer> <003901c7c2b7$63ab1a70$0f921f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070710014303.023626a8@satx.rr.com> <002701c7c312$18615c90$12084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: The NeuroImage article is here, although I think it requires an institutional subscription: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4NX8MST-7&_user=1010281&_coverDate=06%2F07%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=0d9d038b1101b4c523e05e0c7cdcd4e3 Here's the abstract: Magnetic resonance microscopy (MRM), when used in conjunction with active staining, can produce high-resolution, high-contrast images of the mouse brain. Using MRM, we imaged in situ the fixed, actively stained brains of C57BL/6J mice in order to characterize the neuroanatomical phenotype and produce a digital atlas. The brains were scanned within the cranium vault to preserve the brain morphology, avoid shape distortions, and to allow an unbiased shape analysis. The high-resolution imaging used a T1-weighted scan at 21.5 mm isotropic resolution, and an eight-echo multiecho scan, post-processed to obtain an enhanced T2 image at 43 mm resolution. The two image sets were used to segment the brain into 33 anatomical structures. Volume, area, and shape characteristics were extracted for all segmented brain structures. We also analyzed the variability of volumes, areas and shape characteristics. The coefficient of variation of volume had an average value of 7.0. Average anatomical images of the brain for both the T1 weighted and T2 images were generated, together with an average shape atlas, and a probabilistic atlas for 33 major structures. These atlases, with their associated metadata, will serve as baseline for identifying neuroanatomical phenotypes of additional strains, and mouse models now under study. Our efforts were directed toward creating a baseline for comparison with other mouse strains and models of neurodegenerative diseases. On 7/10/07, John K Clark wrote: > > Some scientists at Duke University have made a MRI image of a mouse > brain with "100,000 times higher resolution than a clinical MRI scan". > 100,000! > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070709145329.htm > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neilh at caltech.edu Wed Jul 11 20:14:18 2007 From: neilh at caltech.edu (Neil Halelamien) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:14:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] High resolution MRI In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070628175620.022251d8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070629013916.022a8188@satx.rr.com> <02fe01c7ba1e$99936f30$10074e0c@MyComputer> <62c14240706290450q741024fbt9b8e134cce88623d@mail.gmail.com> <002501c7baf7$f0638190$d8901f97@archimede> <009601c7bb37$b891b260$1c044e0c@MyComputer> <003901c7c2b7$63ab1a70$0f921f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070710014303.023626a8@satx.rr.com> <002701c7c312$18615c90$12084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Also, some of the things which distinguish this from a typical clinical MRI and various other notes: * unlike a lot of other mouse brain MRI research, the brains were left inside the cranium, preventing structural distortion/damage * the brains were fixed and treated with an MRI contrast agent * they used a 9.4T magnet (in contrast, typical clinical MRI is maybe 1-3T) * if I understand correctly, algorithms were then used to automatically segment the different brain areas (33 total) apart from each other, and the area data from the 6 brains was combined to form the atlas * in general, the research is kind of neat, combining a number of already-existing techniques to create a useful atlas On 7/11/07, Neil Halelamien wrote: > > The NeuroImage article is here, although I think it requires an > institutional subscription: > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4NX8MST-7&_user=1010281&_coverDate=06%2F07%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=0d9d038b1101b4c523e05e0c7cdcd4e3 > > > Here's the abstract: > Magnetic resonance microscopy (MRM), when used in conjunction with active > staining, can > produce high-resolution, high-contrast images of the mouse brain. Using > MRM, we imaged in > situ the fixed, actively stained brains of C57BL/6J mice in order to > characterize the > neuroanatomical phenotype and produce a digital atlas. The brains were > scanned within the > cranium vault to preserve the brain morphology, avoid shape distortions, > and to allow an > unbiased shape analysis. The high-resolution imaging used a T1-weighted > scan at 21.5 mm > isotropic resolution, and an eight-echo multiecho scan, post-processed to > obtain an enhanced T2 > image at 43 mm resolution. The two image sets were used to segment the > brain into 33 > anatomical structures. Volume, area, and shape characteristics were > extracted for all segmented > brain structures. We also analyzed the variability of volumes, areas and > shape characteristics. > The coefficient of variation of volume had an average value of 7.0. > Average anatomical images > of the brain for both the T1 weighted and T2 images were generated, > together with an average > shape atlas, and a probabilistic atlas for 33 major structures. These > atlases, with their associated > metadata, will serve as baseline for identifying neuroanatomical > phenotypes of additional strains, > and mouse models now under study. Our efforts were directed toward > creating a baseline for > comparison with other mouse strains and models of neurodegenerative > diseases. > > On 7/10/07, John K Clark wrote: > > > > Some scientists at Duke University have made a MRI image of a mouse > > brain with "100,000 times higher resolution than a clinical MRI scan". > > 100,000! > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070709145329.htm > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From theo75 at clara.co.uk Wed Jul 11 20:09:58 2007 From: theo75 at clara.co.uk (t.theodorus ibrahim) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:09:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Power of Intelligence In-Reply-To: <4694571F.7050201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <01db01c7c3f7$7764c660$0202fea9@BrandLondon.local> Kudos Eliezer. Kudos :-) Theo -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky Sent: 11 July 2007 05:06 To: sl4 at sl4.org Cc: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] The Power of Intelligence Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:54 PM 7/10/2007 -0700, Eli wrote: > >> http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/07/10/the-power-of-intelligence/ > > > "If you saw a movie of a nuclear explosion going off, and you were > told an Earthly life form had done it, you would never in your wildest > dreams imagine that the Soft Pink Things could be responsible. After > all, Soft Pink Things aren't radioactive." > > Not until after the nuclear explosion, anyway. But those were the Soft > Yellowish Things, I guess. And in Australia and the Pacific, the Soft > Black or Brownish Things. > > Not your point, I know. But a point. That's what I get for thinking in cliches. Fixed. -- 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 10/07/2007 17:44 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 10/07/2007 17:44 From neilh at caltech.edu Wed Jul 11 20:20:58 2007 From: neilh at caltech.edu (Neil Halelamien) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:20:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] High resolution MRI In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070628175620.022251d8@satx.rr.com> <02fe01c7ba1e$99936f30$10074e0c@MyComputer> <62c14240706290450q741024fbt9b8e134cce88623d@mail.gmail.com> <002501c7baf7$f0638190$d8901f97@archimede> <009601c7bb37$b891b260$1c044e0c@MyComputer> <003901c7c2b7$63ab1a70$0f921f97@archimede> <7.0.1.0.2.20070710014303.023626a8@satx.rr.com> <002701c7c312$18615c90$12084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: And actually, I just realized the authors have another article which might be more relevant than the one I just linked: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4NS2GHH-B&_user=1010281&_coverDate=05%2F18%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=7ee12fd37f3f16b1609426fd70b456d4 Title: "High-throughput morphologic phenotyping of the mouse brain with magnetic resonance histology" Abstract: The Mouse Biomedical Informatics Research Network (MBIRN) has been established to integrate imaging studies of the mouse brain ranging from three-dimensional (3D) studies of the whole brain to focused regions at a sub-cellular scale. Magnetic resonance (MR) histology provides the entry point for many morphologic comparisons of the whole brain. We describe a standardized protocol that allows acquisition of 3D MR histology (43-?m resolution) images of the fixed, stained mouse brain with acquisition times < 30 min. A higher resolution protocol with isotropic spatial resolution of 21.5 ?m can be executed in 2 h. A third acquisition protocol provides an alternative image contrast (at 43-?m isotropic resolution), which is exploited in a statistically driven algorithm that segments 33 of the most critical structures in the brain. The entire process, from specimen perfusion, fixation and staining, image acquisition and reconstruction, post-processing, segmentation, archiving, and analysis, is integrated through a structured workflow. This yields a searchable database for archive and query of the very large (1.2 GB) images acquired with this standardized protocol. These methods have been applied to a collection of both male and female adult murine brains ranging over 4 strains and 6 neurologic knockout models. These collection and acquisition methods are now available to the neuroscience community as a standard web-deliverable service. On 7/11/07, Neil Halelamien wrote: > > Also, some of the things which distinguish this from a typical clinical > MRI and various other notes: > > * unlike a lot of other mouse brain MRI research, the brains were left > inside the cranium, preventing structural distortion/damage > * the brains were fixed and treated with an MRI contrast agent > * they used a 9.4T magnet (in contrast, typical clinical MRI is maybe > 1-3T) > * if I understand correctly, algorithms were then used to automatically > segment the different brain areas (33 total) apart from each other, and the > area data from the 6 brains was combined to form the atlas > * in general, the research is kind of neat, combining a number of > already-existing techniques to create a useful atlas > > On 7/11/07, Neil Halelamien < neilh at caltech.edu> wrote: > > > > The NeuroImage article is here, although I think it requires an > > institutional subscription: > > > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4NX8MST-7&_user=1010281&_coverDate=06%2F07%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050264&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1010281&md5=0d9d038b1101b4c523e05e0c7cdcd4e3 > > > > > > Here's the abstract: > > Magnetic resonance microscopy (MRM), when used in conjunction with > > active staining, can > > produce high-resolution, high-contrast images of the mouse brain. Using > > MRM, we imaged in > > situ the fixed, actively stained brains of C57BL/6J mice in order to > > characterize the > > neuroanatomical phenotype and produce a digital atlas. The brains were > > scanned within the > > cranium vault to preserve the brain morphology, avoid shape distortions, > > and to allow an > > unbiased shape analysis. The high-resolution imaging used a T1-weighted > > scan at 21.5 mm > > isotropic resolution, and an eight-echo multiecho scan, post-processed > > to obtain an enhanced T2 > > image at 43 mm resolution. The two image sets were used to segment the > > brain into 33 > > anatomical structures. Volume, area, and shape characteristics were > > extracted for all segmented > > brain structures. We also analyzed the variability of volumes, areas and > > shape characteristics. > > The coefficient of variation of volume had an average value of 7.0. > > Average anatomical images > > of the brain for both the T1 weighted and T2 images were generated, > > together with an average > > shape atlas, and a probabilistic atlas for 33 major structures. These > > atlases, with their associated > > metadata, will serve as baseline for identifying neuroanatomical > > phenotypes of additional strains, > > and mouse models now under study. Our efforts were directed toward > > creating a baseline for > > comparison with other mouse strains and models of neurodegenerative > > diseases. > > > > On 7/10/07, John K Clark < jonkc at att.net> wrote: > > > > > > Some scientists at Duke University have made a MRI image of a mouse > > > brain with "100,000 times higher resolution than a clinical MRI scan". > > > 100,000! > > > > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070709145329.htm > > > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > extropy-chat mailing list > > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neville_06 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 11 23:29:18 2007 From: neville_06 at yahoo.com (neville late) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:29:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A very surreal day In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0707041902n4f692d67r2c27058b3078a89c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <246172.92443.qm@web57515.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Not so strange, in the past it would have been unbelievable but now that anyone can pick someone's name and rep off the web. I'll warrant you more of these bizarre entertainment (if that is what you may call it) productions done by strangers will occur. So apparently there's this guy in New York whose name I can't remember ever hearing, and who doesn't seem to have ever emailed me, who's written and directed a play called: _Yudkowski Returns: The Rise And Fall And Rise Again of Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski_ "In a seemingly deserted island, Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski and his artificial intelligence drones and cohorts wage a war to keep their circular narrative from ending. Their only weapon? The hope that humanity can finally evolve. (90 min)" Written and directed by Bob Saietta (possibly a.k.a. Bobby Silverman). This has already had one run and is being brought back for another, at something called "The Pretentious Festival" at the Brick Theater in Brooklyn, NY: http://www.bricktheater.com/pretentious/ If you're going to be in New York on: Tue 7/24 8pm Tue 7/26 7:30pm Sat 7/28 3pm Sat 7/28 9pm Sun 7/29 3pm You can buy tickets for $10: http://www.theatermania.com/content/show.cfm/section/synopsis/show/133057 * Yudkowski Returns! reviewed by Robert Weinstein Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski, the lead character in Yudkowski Returns (The Rise And Fall And Rise Again Of Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski) wishes he were Japanese. He sits at a desk scattered with seemingly random paraphernalia, downloads episodes of Lost and analyzes the homoerotic subtext of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He orders Chinese food. He puts on his Psycho-Sociological Hat, dances around the theatre and leaps into the narcissistic void of his psyche created by a recent breakup. He restages significant moments while putting others in newfound contexts depending on his ability to understand them. And he is not alone. He has the audience, whom he addresses frequently and with a plastered-on smile, and he has The Assistant, a friendly, disheveled, and increasingly confused woman who is at different times his girlfriend, his girlfriend-as-ex, his confidante, and his conscience. Is she real? I'm not confident Dr. Yudkowski knows. But their isolation?his voluntary, hers more problematic?creates an incredibly complex relationship which plays out as they wait on the appearance of The Singularity, an Artificial Intelligence technology that can solve all of life's unsolvable problems. It makes sense of the nonsensical and will bring an end to all of humanity's conflicts as well as Dr. Yudkowski's isolation and, quite possibly, The Assistant's existence. [ Continued at: http://www.nytheatre.com/nytheatre/P07rev_02.htm#400 * Apparently I'm played by Patrick McCaffrey: "A charming assistant introduces the entrance of (cue the cheesy music...) Doctor Yudkowski, played by Patrick, who exudes all the charisma and appeal that Tom Cruise should have had in _Magnolia_." That was from the original blog post I found, at: http://tba-ny.blogspot.com/2007/07/bobby-silverman-my-nemesis-where-has.html I know what you're all wondering: "How does Eliezer look in the director's vision of what his life *should* be like?" Apparently I look like this: http://www.amrep.org/people/patrick.html * Since no one had the courtesy to notify me that a play had been produced about my life - and possibly Erin's, though I don't know if The Assistant is based on her - if anyone in New York goes to this, do please bring back some photos. Though it would probably appeal more to the taste of my enemies than my friends, unless you have a very liberal sense of humor. I used to describe myself as a D-list celebrity. But I guess that when they produce a play about your life, with your name in the title, and they don't bother to tell you, it means you've officially been promoted to a C-list celebrity. I think next I'm supposed to release a sex tape of myself or something - no wait, that's how you go from the B-list to the A-list. --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. --------------------------------- Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrd1415 at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 04:36:00 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:36:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Dawn's Early Light: Ceres and Vesta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for your response, Amara. On 7/9/07, Amara Graps wrote: > Dear Jeff, > > In your description, I didn't see the emphasis on the condensation > sequence that should be there, I was desperately trying to be brief with a subject which gets more complex by the day. When I was a kid, we had the sun, the planets, the asteroid belt and the occasional comet. It was simple and it was static. I started by referring to your interest in "the snow line" (water ice) as similar to my interest in the methane (in particular, hydrocarbon species in general) "snow" line. Aren't these two points along the condensation sequence? And there are a bunch of hydrocarbon species all with different pressure/temp condensation values, no? More points in the sequence, no? Then nitrogen, oxygen, CN, CO, HC, and of course, hydrogen, all with condensation values corresponding to lower temps and greater heliocentric distances (than methane), no? I didn't mention N, O, CN, etc, because I was focusing on methane/hydrocarbons. However, communication is hit and miss, and inferences aren't always apparent. But no matter. One has to start somewhere, and that's what I did, and I must say, with great success. You jumped right in, gave me something to work with, and energized me to revisit the subject. And I've been having a great time doing just that. Much thanks. I can only hope you're having as much fun as I am. (It's a welcome respite from the gloomy and frustrating political crap that I've been obsessing over for the last six years.) > and I think your time sequence is not > really in order. The molecules didn't form during the planet forming > part, but much before, By gas and plasma phase chemistry in the interstellar medium. I was hip to that. Like hydrogen ions impinging on graphite grains. (Which I only just learned yesterday in my reading provoked by this thread.) There are so many delightful details. On my walk in the woods today with the dogs, I began wondering about the interaction cross section for a hydrogen atom (or ion) in the interstellar medium. I read that there is on average one H atom per cc and 1/100 th that much non-H, so I thought, "How far must a H atom travel, statistically speaking, before striking a non-H atom?" It's easy to accept the "primordial soup" of the early earth as a vast and diverse chemical experiment, but the vast expanse and "emptiness"(not!) of interstellar space? Who woulda thunk it? I'm one happy camper, with an abundant serotonin flow. Loved you use of "solar blob", > After the molecular cloud collapses (triggered by a supernova or few, or > some other kind of 'shock') to form the "solar blob"... A technical term, no doubt. ;-) . > and were incorporated into the solids that became > the planetesimals, that became the embryos, that became the planets. > > After the molecular cloud collapses (triggered by a supernova or few, or > some other kind of 'shock') to form the "solar blob", which becomes then > a "protostar+ gas/dust disk (because angular moment is transferred out, > while material transferred in), which becomes a star+gas/dust disk > (fusion has turned on in the protostar), then we have a solar nebula, > where solids form dependent on the temperature and pressure profile of > the nebula, which is time-dependent, as the nebula disk cools too. So > one sees a molecule formation pattern as a function of heliocentric > distance and time. It's very model dependent, as you can imagine. I say > that I would like to know where was snow line during our solar system > formation, which you interpreted as a large unknown. Please forgive me. It certainly is unknown TO ME, because, well, I'm just an amateur. A dilletante, if you will. If I had access to the models, and the skill and diligence to study them, it might not be quite so unknown to me. But speaking of clear communication.... When you speak of the snow line, I get the impression of a static location. I infer from the way you speak of it that it's *effectively* static during the planet-forming period. But the process of contraction and compression heating of the gas cloud, and then (the discontinuity of) solar ignition and the new heating and cooling regime brought on by that... well, the condensation sequence would I think, (before reading the materials on the condensation profile which you have provided) be changing quite a bit re heliocentric distance over that time scale. Anyway, I have quite a homework assignment to catch up with, condensation sequence and that new stuff you posted a link for today, so I'll leave it at that. -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles PS You've got a little somethin' waitin' for ya back in the states. From max at maxmore.com Thu Jul 12 05:02:39 2007 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:02:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The unscientific nature of existing climate forecasts Message-ID: <200707120502.l6C52eUL002915@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com> My commentary on an incisive new paper by forecasting experts Armstrong and Green: Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts by J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO770716334614 Max Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 05:20:14 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:20:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The unscientific nature of existing climate forecasts In-Reply-To: <200707120502.l6C52eUL002915@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com> References: <200707120502.l6C52eUL002915@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7/12/07, Max More wrote: > My commentary on an incisive new paper by forecasting experts > Armstrong and Green: > > Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts > by J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green > http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO770716334614 > I have lived in the UK long enough to know from personal experience that the UK climate is warmer than it used to be. The winters are now so mild overall that the birds and flowers are getting confused, think spring has arrived and get caught by a sudden cold snap. The winter snows have almost disappeared. I remember years ago driving to work between walls of snow and being unable to even get the car out of the garage for over a week. Spring flowers bloom weeks earlier than they used to and many summer flowers now bloom right on to December before a frost kills them off. It is not just my opinion. Many local news reports say similar. After all, the weather is England's favorite topic of conversation. :) BillK From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 06:44:39 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:14:39 +0930 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] The Power of Intelligence In-Reply-To: <46944674.6070204@pobox.com> References: <46944674.6070204@pobox.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0707112344l2f9580c1k6ea90ba2af412746@mail.gmail.com> I love the idea of selling this stuff to VCs. ROFL! btw, should be: Hard-nosed venture capitalist: So tell us, once you've got it working, how will you make people pay for it? Are you thinking of charging for AI subscription on a monthly basis or are you going for a lump-sum payment? SIAI: (pause) yes. Both actually. It'll be like World of Warcraft, but more lucrative. ug. Must shower now. Emlyn On 11/07/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > http://www.singinst.org/blog/2007/07/10/the-power-of-intelligence/ > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > wta-talk mailing list > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > From jwmillerusa at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 03:03:34 2007 From: jwmillerusa at gmail.com (Jeff Miller) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 03:03:34 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Neuroscience Question In-Reply-To: <826717.62378.qm@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <740687.14990.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <826717.62378.qm@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > --- A B wrote: > > I have a geeky question. Do the neurons of different > > major reasons of the brain differ significantly in > > physical structure? As I understand it, cell types vary significantly among the fundamental brain regions (cortex, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, brainstem, etc). HOWEVER, the cerebral cortex (aka isocortex, aka neocortex), consists of the same neuron types, structured in a similar way, throughout. (This is the inspiration for one of its names, "isocortex".) That is the leading theory, at least --- with the exception of one neuron type (see below). The isocortex constitutes approximately 85% of the human brain (by mass), and is responsible for a large part of its advanced activities, including sensory processing (visual, auditory, somatosensory), motor control, language understanding and generation, logic, math, and spatial visualization. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I play one in _Yudkowski Returns: The Rise And Fall And Rise Again of Dr. Eliezer Yudkowski_. ;) (Actually I'm an "AGI" researcher with a keen interest in modeling the brain.) Are you familiar with the work of Vernon Mountcastle? He pioneered this theory in: "An Organizing Principle for Cerebral Function: The Unit Model and the Distributed System", The Mindful Brain (Gerald M. Edelman and Vernon B. rountcastle, eds.) (1978) Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. This excellent paper of his is available online: "The columnar organization of the neocortex", VB Mountcastle, 1997 http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/4/701 Vernon Mountcastle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Mountcastle The exceptional neuron type is called a "spindle" neuron. I will quote briefly from Koch's "The Quest for Consciousness": "... In fact, small and large excitatory pyramidal neurons and spiny stellate cells, as well as inhibitory basket, nonspiny stellate cells, double bouquet neurons, and other members of the diverse menagerie of inhibitory neurons, are found in all mammals. The sole exception, so far, are spindle neurons, a class of giant cells restricted to two neocortical regions in the frontal lobe. Found in high densities in humans, they are much sparser in the great apes and altogether absent in monkeys, cats, and rodents. A few tantalizing hints point toward their possible involvement in self monitoring and self awareness. ... Spindle neurons, the Korkzieher cells of von Economo and Koskinas (1925), are characterized by elongated and large cell bodies in the lower part of layer 5, the output layer of the cortex (Nimchinsky et al., 1999). Absent in newborn infants, their numbers stabilize in adults at about 40,000 neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex and 100,000 or so in FI, another frontal area. These regions are involved in self-evaluation, monitoring, and attentional control." Jeff Miller "The geek shall inherit the Earth." From asa at nada.kth.se Thu Jul 12 13:34:17 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:34:17 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [ExI] Neuroscience Question In-Reply-To: References: <740687.14990.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <826717.62378.qm@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1442.213.112.92.96.1184247257.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Jeff Miller wrote: > As I understand it, cell types vary significantly among the fundamental > brain regions (cortex, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, brainstem, etc). > > HOWEVER, the cerebral cortex (aka isocortex, aka neocortex), consists of > the same neuron types, structured in a similar way, throughout. (This is > the inspiration for one of its names, "isocortex".) That is the leading > theory, at least --- with the exception of one neuron type (see below). Roughly right. The cortex has nearly identical structure everywhere, with the same six layers, apparently the same local circuit diagram, the same kinds of neurons and so on. BUT there are small variations between cortical regions. The most famous one is the Band of Gennari, a whitish line in layer 4C of primary visual cortex due to the high prevalence of myelinated axons from the lateral geniculate nucleus. Motor cortex has some very large-bodied pyramidal cells (Betz cells) that are not found elsewhere. The classic brain areas defined by Brodmann were defined based on differences in cytoarchitecture; they seem to fit functional areas surprisingly well, but there is a lot of individual variability. My own guess is that we have a basic circuit that adapts depending on what kinds of connections and input signals it gets, and this adaptation can change cell numbers, types and function quite profoundly. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 20:02:55 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:02:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] The Power of Intelligence In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707112344l2f9580c1k6ea90ba2af412746@mail.gmail.com> References: <46944674.6070204@pobox.com> <710b78fc0707112344l2f9580c1k6ea90ba2af412746@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240707121302u76fee43ey3b50cefbfcdd0ca9@mail.gmail.com> On 7/12/07, Emlyn wrote: > Hard-nosed venture capitalist: So tell us, once you've got it working, > how will you make people pay for it? Are you thinking of charging for > AI subscription on a monthly basis or are you going for a lump-sum > payment? the customer shouldn't know that it exists. Front it with a "consulting group" that seems to magically always have the right answers. The customer pays for priority think time from your ultra secret brain trust, but don't let them know you have a genie in a bottle. From neilh at caltech.edu Fri Jul 13 02:23:15 2007 From: neilh at caltech.edu (Neil Halelamien) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:23:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Neuroscience Question In-Reply-To: References: <740687.14990.qm@web37410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <826717.62378.qm@web37414.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An interesting bit of trivia: It was recently discovered that whales also have spindle cells. This is likely an example of convergent evolution, as none of the species along the genetic tree traversal between great apes and whales seem to have spindle-like cells. And no, they don't seem to be present in dolphins. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1127/1 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/113473213/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 On 7/11/07, Jeff Miller wrote: > > The exceptional neuron type is called a "spindle" neuron. I will quote > briefly from Koch's "The Quest for Consciousness": > > "... In fact, small and large excitatory pyramidal neurons and spiny > stellate cells, as well as inhibitory basket, nonspiny stellate cells, > double bouquet neurons, and other members of the diverse menagerie of > inhibitory neurons, are found in all mammals. > > The sole exception, so far, are spindle neurons, a class of giant cells > restricted to two neocortical regions in the frontal lobe. Found in high > densities in humans, they are much sparser in the great apes and > altogether absent in monkeys, cats, and rodents. A few tantalizing hints > point toward their possible involvement in self monitoring and self > awareness. > > ... > > Spindle neurons, the Korkzieher cells of von Economo and Koskinas (1925), > are characterized by elongated and large cell bodies in the lower part of > layer 5, the output layer of the cortex (Nimchinsky et al., 1999). Absent > in newborn infants, their numbers stabilize in adults at about 40,000 > neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex and 100,000 or so in FI, another > frontal area. These regions are involved in self-evaluation, monitoring, > and attentional control." > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 13 02:45:22 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:45:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] "Transbeman" film progress report In-Reply-To: <002601c7c2ac$95c3f780$660fa8c0@kevin> Message-ID: <737134.91887.qm@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I received an email link which took me to the "progress report" website for the low-budget science fiction thriller titled "Transbeman." At first I had really scoffed at this movie but *perhaps* there is hope for it and we may actually see aspects of the film as worthwhile for the Transhumanist cause. I suppose this will be a direct to DVD release. John Grigg http://www.transbemanfilm.com --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jul 13 05:24:45 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:24:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200707130542.l6D5gBaX005900@lily.ziaspace.com> Upon the passing of Ladybird Johnson, a local news writer commented that Ladybird changed the way America thought of the first lady. It occurred to me how profound was his statement. Before Mrs. Johnson became first lady, America thought of the first lady as Mrs. Kennedy. But after Mrs. Johnson became the first lady, America thought of the first lady as Mrs. Johnson. Where the heck is everyone, and why am I reduced to making lame first lady jokes just to fill in the quietness? All summer vacations are cancelled until morale improves. spike From Pvthur at aol.com Fri Jul 13 06:21:22 2007 From: Pvthur at aol.com (Pvthur at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:21:22 EDT Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson Message-ID: Ladybird was our most marvelous non/pseudo president we've ever. 'And shall not accept.' -john ************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jul 13 08:21:13 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:21:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: <200707130542.l6D5gBaX005900@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> <200707130542.l6D5gBaX005900@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070713082113.GN7079@leitl.org> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:24:45PM -0700, spike wrote: > Where the heck is everyone, and why am I reduced to making lame first lady What? You missed the Singularity, too? > jokes just to fill in the quietness? All summer vacations are cancelled > until morale improves. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From dharris234 at mindspring.com Fri Jul 13 04:43:57 2007 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:43:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again In-Reply-To: <099301c7c1c8$08d86d90$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> References: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> <200707080641.l686fXDS015196@lily.ziaspace.com> <099301c7c1c8$08d86d90$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> Message-ID: <4697030D.7080504@mindspring.com> The AP text: Battle with Scientology sparks Schwarzenegger pardon request The Associated Press Article Launched: 07/07/2007 12:29:22 PM PDT SACRAMENTO---A former Silicon Valley computer consultant whose decade-long fight with the Church of Scientology led to his ruin is asking Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to free him from a Riverside County jail. Keith Henson's crusade against the church brought him a misdemeanor conviction for interfering with the rights of others to practice their religion. The 64-year-old Californian is now two months into a six-month jail sentence for the crime. It is the latest development in a war that forced Henson into bankruptcy and prompted him to flee to Canada to ask for political asylum. Henson's troubles began in the mid-1990s, when he was living in Palo Alto and happened upon an Internet page criticizing the church for operating more like a cult. Henson published documents on the Internet detailing Scientology's approach to medical treatment. The church sued him for copyright infringement and won $75,000 in damages after a four-day trial in 1998. The ruling forced Henson into bankruptcy. But he moved to Southern California and began picketing Scientology organizations. He was arrested outside a Scientology facility in Riverside County in July 2000 and charged with making terrorist threats and interfering with religious rights. He fled to Canada in 2001 and sought political asylum. When he was denied asylum in 2005, he returned to the United States and was arrested in February. His wife and daughter drove two days from Arizona to Sacramento to present Schwarzenegger on Friday with a petition seeking a pardon or clemency. A Schwarzenegger spokesman wouldn't comment on the request. --------- Joseph Bloch wrote: > There's a relatively brief story from the Saturday paper here: > > http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6322465 > > (I'm guessing the longer article from the Sunday paper will be available on > the web tomorrow.) > > Joseph > http://www.josephbloch.com > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike >> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 2:28 AM >> To: 'ExI chat list' >> Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again >> >> >> >> There is a long article about Keith in today's San Jose Merky News. >> > Unlike > >> his Palo Alto treatment, this one is relatively fair and balanced. It is >> about his efforts to get a pardon from Aaaahnold. Lets hope for the best >> > on > >> that. >> >> spike >> >> -- David Harris, Palo Alto, California. GPS location: 37.41988, -122.13388 (1984 WGS system). Active account: dharris234 at mindspring.com Phone: 1-650-856-9126 (has answering machine or me) Lifetime e-mail forwarding account: David.C.Harris at stanfordalumni.org Postal ("snail mail") address: David Harris Medintrans 455 Margarita Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306-2827 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dharris234 at mindspring.com Fri Jul 13 04:53:35 2007 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:53:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again In-Reply-To: <200707090153.l691rajY018034@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <200707090153.l691rajY018034@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4697054F.5070100@mindspring.com> The long version of the story: San Jose Mercury News (CA) CHURCH CRITIC SEEKS PARDON July 7, 2007 Section: Local Edition: Morning Final Page: 1B MIKE ZAPLER, MediaNews Sacramento Bureau *Illustration:* Photo *Caption:* PHOTO: Henson 64-year-old longtime computer consultant is a former Silicon Valley resident. Former Palo Alto engineer *Keith Henson*'s decade-long battle with the Church of Scientology forced him into bankruptcy, sent him on the lam to Canada to seek political asylum, and recently landed him in a solitary jail cell in Riverside County. Friday, he asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to set him free. His crusade ultimately led to a misdemeanor conviction and six-month jail sentence -- of which he has served about two months -- for interfering with the rights of others to practice their religion. Friday, his wife and daughter arrived in Sacramento after a two-day drive that started in Arizona, and delivered a petition to Schwarzenegger's office seeking a pardon, or short of that, a reduced sentence. ''People react in different ways to things,'' Henson's wife, Arel Lucas, said. ''Some people get angry, other people feel like walking away. He got angry.'' Since May, Henson -- described by his wife as a compassionate man with a boisterous laugh who ''likes to talk and project his thoughts about the future'' -- has sat in a solitary jail cell in Riverside County. Lucas said her husband's troubles are undeserved. He was only trying to protect people, she said, from what he's convinced is a corrupt organization. A 64-year-old longtime computer consultant, Henson has pursued many causes during his life, many outside the mainstream but all of them, family members say, with the intensity of a scientist on the brink of a big breakthrough. In the mid-'70s he helped found the L5 society that was dedicated to creating a space colony where Henson hoped to live someday. He has advocated cryonics, the practice of freezing people with diseases in the hopes of reviving them once a cure is found. Then Henson set his sights on Scientology. Scanning Internet news groups in the mid-1990s, he was drawn to a page critical of Scientology and quickly became convinced. With typical zeal, Henson set out to expose the religion, which some critics charge operates more like a cult, and things quickly escalated into a nasty, protracted battle. A Schwarzenegger spokesman declined to comment, other than to say the governor would give the petition the same careful consideration he does other such requests. Henson's troubles began when he posted on the Internet Scientology documents about its approach to medical treatment. The church, which closely guards its teachings, sued him for copyright infringement. In 1998, after a four-day trial before U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte, Henson was ordered to pay $75,000 to the Religious Technology Center, a wing of the Scientology organization. ''It's amazing the trouble you get into for trying to warn the public about health hazards,'' Henson told the Mercury News after the verdict. ''This was just a loss of a battle in a larger war.'' Indeed it was. The fine forced Henson into bankruptcy, but he wasn't ready to let go. Henson (who, after more than a decade living in Silicon Valley, moved to Southern California) picketed Scientology organizations around Los Angeles. According to his wife, he was roughed up more than once and was a frequent target of death threats. The Church of Scientology did not return calls requesting comment. According to court documents, starting in May 2000 Henson staged daily protests for nearly two months straight outside Golden Era Productions, a Scientology facility in Riverside County that produces promotional materials. Police arrested him July 19 of that year, and prosecutors later alleged that he had threatened to bomb the building. He was charged with three misdemeanors, two for allegedly making or attempting to make terrorist threats, and one for allegedly interfering with another's right to exercise civil rights, namely to practice religion. According to his wife, Henson worked for an explosives company in the 1970s and has experience with pyrotechnics. And he once jokingly suggested online launching a ''Cruise missile'' at a Scientology building -- a reference to actor Tom Cruise, an active church member. But that's a far cry, she said, from being a terrorist. ''He never had access to weapons of mass destruction or had the ability to launch them,'' she said. ''He's not some kind of bomb-throwing, threatening person. He never threatened anyone.'' The jury hung on the two terrorist charges but convicted Henson of interfering with religion, a misdemeanor. But shortly before his sentencing date in 2001, when he was expecting to be sent to jail for six months, Henson bolted for Canada. According to his wife, he feared that Scientologists would harm him in jail, and so he accepted an invitation from a Canadian friend. Barely a month later, shopping at a suburban Toronto mall, Henson was surrounded by a police SWAT team and arrested, his wife said, for failing to disclose his criminal status when he crossed the border. After five days in a high-security jail, he was released. The reason: Henson had applied for political asylum, claiming that if forced to return to the United States, he faced injury or even death at the hands of Scientologists. Henson's petition for refugee status languished in the Canadian court system for more than four years -- a period he spent working for several computer firms and continuing to picket Scientology facilities -- before being denied in mid-2005. Knowing he would soon be deported, he slipped quietly back into the United States and stayed with friends for a year before winding up in Prescott, Ariz., in September. Henson spent the next five months writing, researching, working on his house and -- perhaps not surprisingly -- posting critiques of Scientology on the Web. He made his writings look as if they were coming from a computer in Canada. But Henson wouldn't manage to sidestep the law much longer. In February, he was arrested by undercover officers in Prescott -- he believes Scientologists hired investigators to track him down -- and later was deported to California to begin the jail sentence he had avoided for so long. Will Henson continue the fight after his jail term? Moments after leaving the state Capitol on Friday, clutching letters from supporters in her hand, Lucas said she doubts her husband's crusade will resume anytime soon. ''His lawyer thinks he's going to have to cool it.'' SCIENTOLOGY A brief description of the Church of Scientology. A religious group founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard and based on his book ''Dianetics,'' published in 1950. Scientologists believe that the individual is first and foremost a spirit, or thetan, and that thetans can be cleared of negative energy through a process called auditing. The spiritual counselors who provide this service are called auditors. In part because members are charged fees to receive auditing, Scientology's tenets have been challenged and its practices investigated by governmental agencies around the world. The Church of Scientology's non-profit status in the United States was the subject of legal wrangling for many years, but currently the Internal Revenue Service accepts the church's tax-exempt status. Source: Religionlink spike wrote: > > This is a shortened version, perhaps 20% of the text that was in Saturday's > dead trees version of the Merc. I don't know where to find a full text > online version of that article. I didn't get today's (Sunday's) paper. > Lets see if the governator will terminate Keith's sentence or grant a > paaahdon. > > spike > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch >> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 6:25 PM >> To: 'ExI chat list' >> Subject: Re: [ExI] keith in the news again >> >> There's a relatively brief story from the Saturday paper here: >> >> http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6322465 >> >> (I'm guessing the longer article from the Sunday paper will be available >> on >> the web tomorrow.) >> >> Joseph >> http://www.josephbloch.com >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >>> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike >>> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 2:28 AM >>> To: 'ExI chat list' >>> Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again >>> >>> >>> >>> There is a long article about Keith in today's San Jose Merky News. >>> >> Unlike >> >>> his Palo Alto treatment, this one is relatively fair and balanced. It >>> >> is >> >>> about his efforts to get a pardon from Aaaahnold. Lets hope for the >>> >> best >> on >> >>> that. >>> >>> spike >>> >>> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dharris234 at mindspring.com Fri Jul 13 05:02:45 2007 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:02:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] keith in the news again In-Reply-To: <200707090153.l691rajY018034@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <200707090153.l691rajY018034@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <46970775.40702@mindspring.com> To support Keith, try a letter. The Governator probably gets reports on what the people are writing to their papers. Submit A Letter To The Editor E-mail your thoughts to letters at mercurynews.com . Requirements: 125 words or less; no attachments; include your name, address and daytime phone. Letters will be edited for length and clarity. Street addresses and phone numbers are not published. The Mercury News reserves the right to publish and republish your submission in any form or medium. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jul 13 16:35:19 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:35:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ANNOUNCE: TransVision 2007 Special Notice Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713112907.0251b1e8@natasha.cc> Friends, If you have been dreaming of attending TV07 http://www.transvision2007.com but tossing and turning over the cost, take a deep breath because you can now attend with a 40% discount as a friend of Extropy Institute: Extropy general discount code: FNFTV07 both will generate a 40% off discount. I hope to see you there! Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute 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 Fri Jul 13 14:40:56 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:40:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: <200707130542.l6D5gBaX005900@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> <200707130542.l6D5gBaX005900@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 7/12/07, spike wrote: > Upon the passing of Ladybird Johnson, a local news writer commented that > Ladybird changed the way America thought of the first lady. It occurred to > me how profound was his statement. Before Mrs. Johnson became first lady, > America thought of the first lady as Mrs. Kennedy. But after Mrs. Johnson > became the first lady, America thought of the first lady as Mrs. Johnson. > > Where the heck is everyone, and why am I reduced to making lame first lady > jokes just to fill in the quietness? And so you initiate a thread about personal identity?! - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 13 17:57:01 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:57:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: References: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> <200707130542.l6D5gBaX005900@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713125601.043c5078@satx.rr.com> At 07:40 AM 7/13/2007 -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: >And so you initiate a thread about personal identity?! I thought it was about the Kennedy assassination and the need for gun control. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 13 18:26:02 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:26:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] scary stuff Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713132536.022e0938@satx.rr.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq-YUdq1OI&NR=1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=-DylNVUN_3I From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 19:18:44 2007 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:18:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, Message-ID: <9b9887c80707131218n5fcfff7dw74accb9a2140ab61@mail.gmail.com> "this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, because Homeland Security confiscated their Camels," i just had to share this! smile, ilsa -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coltrane www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 13 19:54:40 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:54:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, In-Reply-To: <9b9887c80707131218n5fcfff7dw74accb9a2140ab61@mail.gmail.co m> References: <9b9887c80707131218n5fcfff7dw74accb9a2140ab61@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713145305.02209220@satx.rr.com> >"this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, >because Homeland Security confiscated their Camels," Yep, when they take away your camels, the best way to comm is mounted on a thrumming morotcycle--as Spike can surely attest! From fauxever at sprynet.com Fri Jul 13 20:23:51 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (fauxever at sprynet.com) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:23:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, Message-ID: <380-220077513202351843@M2W020.mail2web.com> From: Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:54:40 -0500 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] "this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, >>"this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, because Homeland Security confiscated their Camels," > Yep, when they take away your camels, the best way to comm is mounted on a thrumming morotcycle--as Spike can surely attest! Naaaaah. If they truly are Wise Men, they wouldn't be on a Moroncycle to begin with ... Olga _______________________________________________ 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 pharos at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 20:42:14 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:42:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] "this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713145305.02209220@satx.rr.com> References: <9b9887c80707131218n5fcfff7dw74accb9a2140ab61@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713145305.02209220@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7/13/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > Yep, when they take away your camels, the best way to comm is mounted > on a thrumming morotcycle--as Spike can surely attest! > Hey! That's weird!. Google gives 629 hits for morotcycle. And they all seem to be mis-spellings. Is this an in-joke? Or is it a common brain quirk to scramble the letters like this? BillK (Thrumming on his rotomcycle) From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Jul 13 20:46:26 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:46:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713145305.02209220@satx.rr.com> References: <9b9887c80707131218n5fcfff7dw74accb9a2140ab61@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713145305.02209220@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7/13/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > >"this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, > >because Homeland Security confiscated their Camels," > > Yep, when they take away your camels, the best way to comm is mounted > on a thrumming morotcycle--as Spike can surely attest! Lizbeth loves the thrumming of my v-twin. It's like comming and going at the same time! - Jef From dagonweb at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 21:00:38 2007 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:00:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, In-Reply-To: References: <9b9887c80707131218n5fcfff7dw74accb9a2140ab61@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713145305.02209220@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Why am I seeing Mad Max style looting gangs in my mind's eye vision hauling of Mary on the back of their roaring hawgs, her panties on her ankles? The wiseguys came a little early this year I suppose. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 13 21:04:44 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:04:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, In-Reply-To: References: <9b9887c80707131218n5fcfff7dw74accb9a2140ab61@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713145305.02209220@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713160314.0229b8c0@satx.rr.com> At 09:42 PM 7/13/2007 +0100, BillK wrote: >. >Google gives 629 hits for morotcycle. > >is it a common brain quirk to scramble the letters like this? Well, R and T are tr next to each other on the keyboard. I mean rt next... From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jul 13 22:52:43 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:52:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200707132258.l6DMw78A002583@lily.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson > > On 7/12/07, spike wrote: ... > > America thought of the first lady as Mrs. Kennedy... why am I reduced to making lame first lady jokes just to fill in the quietness? > > And so you initiate a thread about personal identity?! > > - Jef I do not seek, and will not accept, a thread about personal identity. spike {8^D From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jul 13 23:43:10 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:43:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "this year the Three Wise Men are comming on a Morotcycle, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200707132343.l6DNh6qk003198@lily.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK ... > Hey! That's weird!. > Google gives 629 hits for morotcycle. > And they all seem to be mis-spellings. > > Is this an in-joke? > Or is it a common brain quirk to scramble the letters like this? > > BillK > (Thrumming on his rotomcycle) Ja, I have been known to thrum a morotcycle on occasion. Regarding morotcycles, here's an interesting experiment in scrambled letters that went around the internet some time ago. The website author wanted to see if this effect works in other languages. Please, would the multilingual among us comment? http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/ I was surprised to be able to read the scrambled text almost as quickly as I did the straight version. At the time I attributed it to my love of crossword puzzles. But today I asked a noncruciverbalist to read the text. She was perfectly adept too. Regarding the three wise men in the title, perhaps this is a reference to the nativity of whats-his-name, the church guy from Nazareth. If one examines the account in Matthew chapter 1, it nowhere actually specifies that there were three of them, only that their gifts were gold, frankincense and that mysterious and suspicious sounding gift, myrrh. Furthermore the original Greek version does not actually specify that they were all men, or even that they were necessarily wise. Reasonable assumptions were made however, and it has come down in the English translations as wise men. Freely I will admit, it does irreparable violence to the poems and songs if one hits control H and universally replaces "three wise men" with the phrase "unknown quantities of apparently humanoid lifeforms with indeterminate levels of intelligence." spike From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Jul 13 23:18:25 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:18:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: <200707132258.l6DMw78A002583@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <200707132258.l6DMw78A002583@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 7/13/07, spike wrote: > > I do not seek, and will not accept, a thread about personal identity. I've sought, but have never seen, an acceptable thread about personal identity. - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 14 00:11:25 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:11:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200707140011.l6E0BY6d017502@lily.ziaspace.com> > Subject: Re: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson > > On 7/13/07, spike wrote: > > > > I do not seek, and will not accept, a thread about personal identity. > > I've sought, but have never seen, an acceptable thread about personal > identity. > > - Jef I have identified, but have not personalized, a thread about seeking acceptance. This is getting all far too silly. {8-] Jef, how is it that you and I lived a couple kilometers from each other for at least a couple years but never actually met? spike From mfj.eav at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 00:55:24 2007 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:55:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] TransVision 2008- extropian politics Message-ID: <61c8738e0707131755q65895737s19aa895dbc09b7d2@mail.gmail.com> Hi Y'all: I had plans to attend the Transvision 07 in Chicago, but the unexpected came along and scooped those plans. I am being drafted to be a candidate for the Saskatchewan , Canada provincial constituency of Estevan by the governing political party the New Democrats. So I better squirrel the cash and bank the time for the run up to an expected October or November election. So , perhaps the first extropian to if I can wildly speculate, to become "Minister for the Bioeconomy" might become reality. To be more subdued, this constituency is now not held by our governing party so the battle is an uphill one. The constituency is situated in a high intensity area of petroleum development, has major power generating facilities, is on the main Canada/USA road and rail transportation corridor. A billion dollar coal plant is due to be built with CO2 by products to be used to solubilize heavy oil deposits in the area. Saskatchewan has a major bioproducts pre-commercialization initiative, but no significant ethanol. or other bioproducts plants yet. I suppose my published works detailing restructuring of education, health care and developing a bioeconomy have moved the powers that be to seek me out. We have discussed extropian visioning and how this might interact with politics in the past ... So , I might be breaking all the rules of this list by suggesting this, but I'd like to openly discuss this topic over the next few months with the view to receiving wise counsel, under the header " Minister responsible for the Bioeconomy". Once the nomination is complete and set in stone later this month, I will be guided to attend numerous public and private contituency functions so that I might find favor key business and public enterprise leaders who may then influence general voter sympathy. You may also send private communications off-list to cardse45.eav2 at gmail.com Morris Johnson -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-47-4944, 701-240-9411 Mission: To Preserve, Protect and Enhance Lifespan Plant-based Natural-health Bio-product Bio-pharmaceuticals -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jul 14 00:42:48 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:42:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: <200707140011.l6E0BY6d017502@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <200707140011.l6E0BY6d017502@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 7/13/07, spike wrote: > > > > I do not seek, and will not accept, a thread about personal identity. > > > > I've sought, but have never seen, an acceptable thread about personal > > identity. > > > > - Jef > > > I have identified, but have not personalized, a thread about seeking > acceptance. > > This is getting all far too silly. {8-] Jef, how is it that you and I > lived a couple kilometers from each other for at least a couple years but > never actually met? INTJ. What's your excuse? ;-) Actually, I get out much more now that the kids are all on their own. I feel a rotomcycle ride from Santa Barbara to the Bay Area coming on... - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 14 01:24:37 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:24:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200707140124.l6E1Om8S029661@lily.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright ... > > INTJ. What's your excuse? ;-) INTP. {8^D > Actually, I get out much more now that the kids are all on their own... No so here. My kid owns me. > I feel a rotomcycle ride from Santa Barbara to the Bay Area coming > on... > > - Jef Cool! My bike would like an excuse to rotom about the countryside. Any other ExI rotomcyclers out there? When one thinks about it, the word should have been rotomcycle to start with. The sound is more suggestive. One can almost hear a revving bike in the mind's ear: rotommmm, rooootoooommm, rotom. I propose a universal name change. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 14 02:01:12 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:01:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] rotomel In-Reply-To: <200707140124.l6E1Om8S029661@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <200707140124.l6E1Om8S029661@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713210010.02485458@satx.rr.com> At 06:24 PM 7/13/2007 -0700, Spike wrote: >My bike would like an excuse to rotom about the countryside. Any >other ExI rotomcyclers out there? Not here, but can I come on my Camel? Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jul 14 02:37:39 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:37:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] rotomel In-Reply-To: References: <200707140124.l6E1Om8S029661@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713210010.02485458@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > ...might violate local ordinances. > er, or not. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jul 14 02:28:59 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:28:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] rotomel In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713210010.02485458@satx.rr.com> References: <200707140124.l6E1Om8S029661@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713210010.02485458@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7/13/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:24 PM 7/13/2007 -0700, Spike wrote: > > >My bike would like an excuse to rotom about the countryside. Any > >other ExI rotomcyclers out there? > > Not here, but can I come on my Camel? Damien, seein' as yer in Texas, such an act might violate local ordinances. - Jef From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 08:39:38 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:39:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] scary stuff In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713132536.022e0938@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713132536.022e0938@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: The second conversion episode, the one where the fellow was standing, was quite interesting. Watch it carefully. The man's back is turned. He cannot see what is going on behind him. Yet the motion of his body in falling backward is remarkably well coordinated with the gestural motion of the man behind him out of sight. While it looks "convincing" it is nevertheless very easy to fake if the two are working together. The man in front controls the pace of the action and the man behind actually cues off of him. In which case it would be logical to conclude that the entire piece is theatre. Then there is the notion of some action-at-a-distance bio-energy phenomenon. Then there is characterizing the phenomenon as god-associated, which poses definitional problems. If I were to attempt to distinguish between bio-energy and god, I might propose that "bio-energy" is accessible to science (detectable, measurable, subject to the rules of logic), and that "god" would prove inaccessible (undetectable, unmeasurable, not repeatably subject to the rules of logic). Why scary, Damien? For me it would be because it challenges my non-faith. But I just hold it as a truth of evolutionary psychology that humans identify with a group through its meme set and feel stressed/threatened when confronted by a competing meme set. After billions of generations of accumulated instincts, it's hard to live comfortably with them, impossible to live without them. I still feel good about getting up in the morning. Mostly. Best, Jeff Davis "We call someone insane who does not believe as we do to an outrageous extent." Charles McCabe On 7/13/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq-YUdq1OI&NR=1 > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=-DylNVUN_3I > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From scerir at libero.it Sat Jul 14 10:08:05 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:08:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] rotomel References: <200707140124.l6E1Om8S029661@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713210010.02485458@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c7c5fe$e6924860$52951f97@archimede> > Any other ExI rotomcyclers out there? Since my first was a 'Motom' (you can read it from the left or from the right), a 'Motom' 4-stroke, 48 cm^3, http://www.subito.it/vi/1081719.htm?ca=5_s I'd say there is a ... Motomcycler out there. s. PS: strange object, isn't it? From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 14 15:42:38 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:42:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] scary stuff In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713132536.022e0938@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070714103252.0266d410@satx.rr.com> At 01:39 AM 7/14/2007 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >The second conversion episode, the one where the fellow was standing, >was quite interesting. Watch it carefully. The man's back is turned. > He cannot see what is going on behind him. Yet the motion of his >body in falling backward is remarkably well coordinated with the >gestural motion of the man behind him out of sight. The hypnotist has suggested indirectly that he will fall ("don't be afraid, I'll catch you"), and makes the repeated "magic pass" gestures (for the benefit of the audience) until he sees the beginning of the topple, at which point he whips his hand away, implying a "pull". This guy is a tremendously acute observer, as can be seen in some of the other YouTube fragments from his stunts and performances. >Why scary, Damien? For me it would be because it challenges my >non-faith. Scary because, unless it *is* a bogus performances using stooges (which I doubt) it's an index of how astonishingly *easy* it is to program humans by eliciting narratives and feelings inserted into them by both evolutionary history and their culture. Watch carefully how he brings into the awareness of the first woman whom he "converts" overwhelming childhood memories of her grandmother, associating those feelings with granny's "faith". I'm not sure how persistent such instant (re-)conversions would be, but if they were supported by ongoing encouragement from an emotional "faith community" I think they'd be likely to stick. And the victims *wouldn't notice* their manipulation. Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jul 14 17:09:05 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:09:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070713125601.043c5078@satx.rr.com> References: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> <200707130542.l6D5gBaX005900@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713125601.043c5078@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <46990331.6080707@mac.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 07:40 AM 7/13/2007 -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > > >> And so you initiate a thread about personal identity?! >> > > I thought it was about the Kennedy assassination and the need for gun control. > > Yeah sure. Take guns away from the citizens to stop the CIA from orchestrating a hit on a troublesome president. Sounds like a reasonable candidate for the "Stupid Monkey" thread award to me. Let's do it! Actually I was expecting the thread to devolve into a paean for the "Great Society". :-) - s From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 14 17:12:23 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:12:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] scary stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200707141712.l6EHCWt4018371@lily.ziaspace.com> Jeff Davis wrote: > The second conversion episode, the one where the fellow was standing, > was quite interesting. Watch it carefully. The man's back is turned. > He cannot see what is going on behind him... Having seen this sort of thing first hand, I would hafta conclude that at least two audience members, probably three, were in cahoots with Brown. Jeff, your Ray Charles quote works really well here: > "Everything's hard till you > know how to do it." There is a good chance the first woman was a confederate, to get the audience in the mood. The second guy I am not sure about, but I suspect he was also working with Brown. Notice how Brown placed the "randomly chosen" audience member in a certain place. This would work great if he had previously placed a picture on the wall in such a way that the audience member could see a ghost reflection in the glass and therefore know when to fall back. >From seeing this, the audience members would then know what they are supposed to do, suggested by the second demonstration. This power of suggestion phenom explains why the audience members of a Peter Popov revival always seem to fall prostate when taken by the spirit, whereas none of the audience members at a Billy Graham revival fall to the ground. The Graham jesus-getters instead weep and raise their arms in praise, but do not faint. Graham does not employ catchers for falling jesus-getters, as Popov does (he still does). Now consider the third scene, where Brown has the audience stand and experience the influx of some unknown something that they are supposed to be feeling. There is a plop as one something-getter falls into his seat. The others soon follow suit, which I would argue is another example of the power of suggestion. The first falling something-getter might have been in cahoots to start with. Brown does not reveal his use of confederates, but he does say that this is all a trick. So he broadly hints at it, without specifically denying the use of confederates in the audience. If he does not use any confederates, his powers of hypnosis are impressive indeed. But I would not conclude from the videos that he is not using insiders in the audience. spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Davis > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:40 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] scary stuff > > The second conversion episode, the one where the fellow was standing, > was quite interesting. Watch it carefully. The man's back is turned. > He cannot see what is going on behind him... > > Mostly. > ... > Best, Jeff Davis > > "Everything's hard till you > know how to do it." > Ray Charles From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 14 17:41:37 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:41:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: <46990331.6080707@mac.com> References: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> <200707130542.l6D5gBaX005900@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713125601.043c5078@satx.rr.com> <46990331.6080707@mac.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070714123929.02678738@satx.rr.com> At 10:09 AM 7/14/2007 -0700, samantha wrote: > >> And so you initiate a thread about personal identity?! > > > I thought it was about the Kennedy assassination and the need for > gun control. > >Yeah sure. Take guns away from the citizens Sorry, my mistake, I misspoke. I meant I thought it was about the Watergate conspiracy and the UFO greys captured at Roswell. Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jul 14 18:10:59 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:10:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070714123929.02678738@satx.rr.com> References: <20070705081137.GU7079@leitl.org> <200707130542.l6D5gBaX005900@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070713125601.043c5078@satx.rr.com> <46990331.6080707@mac.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070714123929.02678738@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7/14/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > Sorry, my mistake, I misspoke. I meant I thought it was about the > Watergate conspiracy and the UFO greys captured at Roswell. Which is why this thread highlights the importance of clear speech, whether it's about comming on rotomcycles (or camels), or violating local statues or ordinances. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 04:04:39 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:04:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Aranoff-Bohm Effect (was Precognition on TV) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com><4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no><7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070315175649.022ec7e8@satx.rr.com><003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070318140758.0236d6c8@satx.rr.com> <002b01c76a51$5dbfbad0$0fba1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <0aa301c7c695$8165d5f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Serafino wrote ----- Original Message ----- From: "scerir" Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:06 AM > The electron interference (electron wavefunction entering > both slits of a Young interferometer; electron wf > choosing both paths in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer; > etc.) is, in principle, more interesting than photon > interference. > > Because, with electrons, the interference pattern also > depends on the (possible) existence of a magnetic field, > inside the interferometer. Even when this field > is completely and perfectly shielded, the amplitudes > of the electron can feel, nonlocally or via action > at a distance, the existence of a magnetic field, > and the interference pattern changes. My God. Even though the electrons are TOTALLY SHIELDED other electrons (in QM experiments, at least) can "feel" their effect. As I understand it, this "Aharonov-Bohm" effect that you mention really depends on electromagnetic *potential*. Heretofore, was not this potential merely a mathematical convenience? (I mean that as a serious question.) Anyway, 25 years after the advent of quantum mechanics, this comes out of nowhere. (For others, see the full story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect ) > There are several problems, or difficulties, with the > principles of conservation here, due to that action > at a distance, but this is another story. Why action at a distance?? Can't potential be looked upon as a field phenomenon? After all, look at gravitational potential, which is so much easier for us amateurs to think about. Sure, preRelativity folks would say that *everything* about the trajectory of an object in a grav field followed Newton's Laws to a T. (No pun intended.) But now we know that even if you magically had "gravitational shielding" the clock would run more slowly depending on gravitational *potential* nothing more nothing less. Lee (I'm not sure, but the young > Zeilinger perhaps performed neutron interferometry > experiments, and found that the interference pattern > depends on the gravity field). > > Having two beams of entangled electrons, and two > interferometers, and two shielded magnetic fields, > it is possible to check that the second order > interference (the output of one interferometer versus > the output of the other interferometer) depends > on the difference between the two magnetic fields, > even when the two interferometers are in separated > regions (spacelike separated also I suppose). This > is a sort of double nonlocality, that is two say EPR > nonlocality + Bohm-Aharonov nonlocality. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 04:37:28 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:37:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <017d01c7b2dc$e50d45b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01e001c7b3d7$4c627550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f901c7b488$40852cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <023301c7b4db$a4feada0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes (but others please see important P.S. at bottom) > On 25/06/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> [Stathis wrote] >> >> > If I can overcome my fear of anticipating no successor experiences >> > then I should (logically, I would argue) overcome my fear of death. >> >> So just how upset, under midazolam, would you be? Alas, >> it's not something that one would get "used to"! For the >> very interesting reason that one would not recall the previous >> instances of so being under the influence. > > I think you would get used to it, because you would remember agreeing > to have the dose and then finding yourself somewhere else a while > later (usually waking up, at the doses that cause complete amnesia) > with no recollection of the intervening period. You could go through > this many times, and in fact some patients do, and stop worrying about > it. This means that you can arrive at a state of mind whereby you can > accept that you-thinking-this can anticipate no future experiences. That's very interesting: so patients *are* able to adjust to this. But please note that this is a mild form of the real problem. What if every time they were completely and totally under the influence of midazolam, they learned a particularly horrifying fact, such as that they had just a few months to live. They could *not* get used to see. (This may seem irrelevant right now, but see below.) > Now, given that you have arrived at such a position, why is it more > "logical" to procede to the conclusion that this is OK as long as some > near-copy (which you-thinking-this will never directly know) has > future experiences, rather than the conclusion that death does not > matter at all, or doesn't matter as long as someone else will be > around to complete your projects? I never said that "death doesn't matter". You've been reading posts from the non-believers! :-) Just a terminological quibble: we of the true faith do not regard destruction of an instance to be anything like *death*. In the information/patternist view (see Mike Perry's book Forever for All for the most complete description embraced by many cryonicists (I say this for whoever else may be reading this thread)) *death* occurs only upon irretrievable information loss. What I meant to say (and was a bit clumsy about it) is that you *never* get used to being an instance that is about to be disintegrated (a point you probably already acknowledge, but this is what I meant anyway). For example, suppose that teleportation became the norm, only it was "teleportation with delay". That is, the original lived on for another sixty seconds while it was confirmed that his remote duplicate had been successfully incarnated. He would see his newly created duplicate over closed circuit TV alive and well at the remote destination, and his remote duplicate would see him. Now over time, the commuter who employed this teleportation with delay would become completely accustomed to it working just fine. Each time he used it, he would appear at the destination and see his original on the TV screen and wave. But after a few months of this, he would note the increasing astonishment apparent on the original's face. Why? Because the original would have remembered being on the *receiving* end numerous times, having never experienced being on the to-be-disintegrated end. Even I would be astonished, I couldn't help it. But *I* would not be alarmed, just rather amused. Because I have internalized that tomorrow I will still wake up in the same bed, no matter what trifling incidents happen to me today. In fact, I would realize that *I* was really there at the remote destination! It would simply be that the instance *here* was not collecting memories of what was happening to me *there*. Perfectly natural, given the circumstances. Lee P.S. For the nth #!%!@$! time, if you despise the very existence of threads that don't interest you, simply *ignore* those discussions! Please don't issue fruitless and petty complaints about the fact that some people enjoy talking about things that you do not enjoy talking about. If you do *not* have the self-discipline to refrain from reading threads that disinterest you, then for God's sake focus on the following: the very existence of a variety of discussions encourages the perception that the list is alive and well, and unconsciously persuades people that numerous folks are attending to what they have to say. So, from your point of view, boring threads are not an unmitigated evil. So PLEASE desist from nasty remarks and innuendos about identity threads. If they're not relevant to uploading and transhumanism, then I don't know what is. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 04:48:54 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:48:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom Message-ID: <0ab801c7c69b$d094ed40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Washington D.C., April 12, 2024 (El Independiete) -- Today the U.S. Department of Plenty issued regulations stipulating that all toilet-paper dispensing machines are to be surrendered to your nearest recycling facility within one week. Gone will be the standard three single-ply paper squares and the six-minute wait between emissions designed to thwart eco-criminals. In a new effort to further save trees and preserve the environment, new saniWipe towels are now manditory in all homes and businesses. Saniwipes send information to your city or county Department of Health if the mandated daily washing of the cloth-like asstowel in your recyclable water system does not occur, provided, of course that someone in your household or business has actually used toilet facilities during a particular 24 hour period, (this information also being collected by the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure compliance with basic hygiene... We may be glad that it's not really 2024 yet, and that although the government does mandate the rate of flow in your showerheads----wait! Did you know that? Did you know that by Federal Regulations it is illegal to sell or trade in showerheads that use more than 2.5 gallons per minute? Did you know that I myself could be in *big* trouble for suggesting ways that many simpler showerheads can be modified to overcome this particular environmentally friendly form of self-denial/self-flagellation? Of course, I would never do that, it being strictly against the law, and---as I've said repeatedly---rule of law is the foundation of all our progress (and, given the upcoming Singularity, probably essential to our survival). I sometimes use razor blades on days following a long recluse, and whenever I do I thank goodness that it's 2008 and not Orwell's 1984 and that the Ministry of Plenty doesn't really exist yet. Winston Smith, in an interesting parallel to today's environment conscious consumer, was compelled to use very inferior quality razor blades for longer and longer periods of time, even as small cuts and abrasions appeared each day on his face in greater numbers. But Winston Smith loved Big Brother, or rather he did just as soon as his minor psychiatric issues were adjusted. He knew that from year to year razor blades were becoming of lower and lower quality, but he really wasn't aware, unlike you, the reader of 1984, just how pitifully bad his razor blades had become---because over time people simply adjust to anything. Just as you have in all likelihood (since 1994 when the law went into effect) adjusted to the picayune amount of water your showerhead dispenses. I know people who love obeying environmental friendly laws, and who go out of their way, even to pathological extents, to comply in ways not even yet regulated. One woman acquaintance of mine insists not only that everyone in the household recycle all plastic bottles, but that they all be *washed* before being left for the recyclers. If you try pointing out to her that the recycling machinery washes the containers anyway, and as new plastic items are manufactured the plastic undergoes chemical cleansing processes, a look of actual pain crosses her features. She *likes* washing them because of the warm fuzzies it gives her knowing that her self-denial is a form of conscientiousness in the service of Mother Earth. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 04:55:39 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:55:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The unscientific nature of existing climate forecasts References: <200707120502.l6C52eUL002915@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <0ab901c7c69c$84d92690$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Max writes > My commentary on an incisive new paper by forecasting experts > Armstrong and Green: > > Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts > by J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green > http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO770716334614 Max writes a very nice piece in support of the very cautious attitude that we should take concerning "scientific" claims about global warming, and *especially* concerning claims about anthropogenic global warming. But I don't find the paper itself all that impressive. Damien had posted a link to the paper itself: From: "Damien Broderick" Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:16 AM Subject: [ExI] NASA report on re-engineering global warming > http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/SolarRadiationCP.pdf So there is this *one* guy, J. Scott Armstrong and associates who have come up 140 "forecasting principles". (To be fair, I have not studied those principles. But my skepticism has been triggered.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong,_J._Scott As one bad sign about the paper, notice he proudly exhibits "Wikipedia's List of Global Warming Skeptics". Among them I see a TV personality, "Fred Barnes"! Now this whole paper purports to embrace only the *highest* scientific standards, and the exhibition of such is *not* helpful. I myself have been forced, against my experience and intutions, to admit that global warming is taking place. True, most of that is second-hand reliance on many, many people I admire and look up to, and as a pious Bayesian I must attribute no little probably correctness to their views. But there are also some rather compelling graphs and data I've seen myself. First, let's try to distinguish exactly what we mean by "global warming". I mean what is been happening since 1970 or so. Others mean what has been happening for a much longer period. Now in the current politically correct atmosphere, it often means the "ideology of climate change", the frenzied effort to engage in massive society-wide self-denial to throw ourselves in front of the juggernaut for the sake of Mother Earth. And ABOVE ALL to increase the flow of funding to climate scientists, increase taxation, weaken the influence of corporations, and inflict as much damage as possible on the economy in the hopes of resurrecting "nicer" alternatives to capitalism. But I digress. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 05:05:11 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:05:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <013c01c7b22b$22548210$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <017d01c7b2dc$e50d45b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01e001c7b3d7$4c627550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <021a01c7b49c$95d72030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Gordon wrote From: "gts" Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 11:44 AM > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:56:51 -0400, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> A problem I see is that your will may change from hour to hour >> (possibly depending on mood, or even caffeine and so forth), >> as I go into more below. > > I don't see that as a problem. As I wrote to Stathis in another message, I > view continuity of self as no more than a convenient fiction, > philosophically speaking. > > I'm quite certain I'm not the same person I seemed to be at age five and > in my view it follows logically that neither am I the same person I seemed > to be five minutes ago. Now that's logic for you. Since it's not the same season it was a few months ago, then it must follow logically that today it's not the same season it was yesterday. On the contrary, logic grabs you by the throat and forces you to admit that things change gradually. Okay, so Gordon a.k.a. is a convenient fiction. What do you care whether this convenient fiction lives or dies? Oh. I forgot. You do die every moment. Okay, so what do you care whether there is a new gts waking up in *your* bed (of all the nerve) and assuming *your* identity? Oh yes. Now I remember. That creature happens to have the same *will* as you do you. Was ist das will? Can it be separated from your memories? If so, then I have a great bargain for you! For a mere $250,000 let the creature who wakes up in your bed tomorrow have your will, but have Lee Corbin's memories. We both win. Your will gets 250K to exert its control in the world, and I get more runtime! >>> In fact they never were the same person; it simply took a while >>> for their wills to diverge sufficiently to make the truth apparent. >> >> You're right in that my duplicate and I might muse on how odd it >> was. We would no doubt attribute it to a most interesting divergence >> of our internal workings. > > Odd is an understatement. :) > > If that other man were **really** you then he would have your unique will, > which includes your unique will to eat cornflakes for breakfast instead of > wheaties. Oops. Sorry for misunderstanding you. So the gts tomorrow who suddenly on whim changes his choice of breakfast cereal doesn't even have your will. Boy, are you history! Lee > Furthermore he would be choosing to eat the cornflakes from your > bowl while sitting in your chair and wearing your shoes. :) From sentience at pobox.com Sun Jul 15 06:05:45 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:05:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity In-Reply-To: <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <017d01c7b2dc$e50d45b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01e001c7b3d7$4c627550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f901c7b488$40852cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <023301c7b4db$a4feada0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > For example, suppose that teleportation became the norm, only > it was "teleportation with delay". That is, the original lived on for > another sixty seconds while it was confirmed that his remote > duplicate had been successfully incarnated. He would see his > newly created duplicate over closed circuit TV alive and well > at the remote destination, and his remote duplicate would see > him. > > Now over time, the commuter who employed this teleportation > with delay would become completely accustomed to it working > just fine. Each time he used it, he would appear at the destination > and see his original on the TV screen and wave. But after a few > months of this, he would note the increasing astonishment apparent > on the original's face. Why? Because the original would have > remembered being on the *receiving* end numerous times, having > never experienced being on the to-be-disintegrated end. > > Even I would be astonished, I couldn't help it. But *I* would not > be alarmed, just rather amused. Because I have internalized that > tomorrow I will still wake up in the same bed, no matter what > trifling incidents happen to me today. In fact, I would realize > that *I* was really there at the remote destination! It would > simply be that the instance *here* was not collecting memories > of what was happening to me *there*. Perfectly natural, given > the circumstances. Suppose we permit the quantum theory of immortality, so that, in a tiny fraction of worlds, a successor to the original-location commuter would survive; the disintegrator would malfunction. By QTI it would feel like the line of subjective experience definitely continued there (and it still annoys me that I can think of no non-subjective experiment which distinguishes between QTI and its theoretical alternatives). Would this change your mind about the whole thing being a case of short-term memory loss? Would you say that in this case they become different people - different subjective lines? If so, what difference does some tiny infinitesimal fraction of worlds make? Why not say they are two people to begin with, and one line ends? I just can't get rid of the apparently basic nature of the question "What seems to happen next?" I acknowledge this as probably indicating some kind of very basic flaw in my understanding, but I see nothing for it but to continue pursuing the line of reasoning until I can see where I am confused. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 06:53:51 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:53:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com><017d01c7b2dc$e50d45b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><01e001c7b3d7$4c627550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><01f901c7b488$40852cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><023301c7b4db$a4feada0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> Message-ID: <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes > Lee Corbin wrote: > >> For example, suppose that teleportation became the norm, only >> it was "teleportation with delay". That is, the original lived on for >> another sixty seconds while it was confirmed that his remote >> duplicate had been successfully incarnated. He would see his >> newly created duplicate over closed circuit TV alive and well >> at the remote destination, and his remote duplicate would see >> him. >> >> Now over time, the commuter who employed this teleportation >> with delay would become completely accustomed to it working >> just fine. Each time he used it, he would appear at the destination >> and see his original on the TV screen and wave. But after a few >> months of this, he would note the increasing astonishment apparent >> on the original's face. Why? Because the original would have >> remembered being on the *receiving* end numerous times, having >> never experienced being on the to-be-disintegrated end. >> >> Even I would be astonished, I couldn't help it. But *I* would not >> be alarmed, just rather amused. Because I have internalized that >> tomorrow I will still wake up in the same bed, no matter what >> trifling incidents happen to me today. In fact, I would realize >> that *I* was really there at the remote destination! It would >> simply be that the instance *here* was not collecting memories >> of what was happening to me *there*. Perfectly natural, given >> the circumstances. > > Suppose we permit the quantum theory of immortality, so that, in a > tiny fraction of worlds, a successor to the original-location commuter > would survive; the disintegrator would malfunction. By QTI it would > feel like the line of subjective experience definitely continued there Yes, not only would it feel like (your nice phrase) "the line of subjective experience" continued there, it would in fact continue there. Were the miraculously rescued instance of the guy of the typical frame of mind he'd exclaim "Wow! What a close call! This time instead of the true-me getting teleported and the false-me getting disintegrated, it happened the other way around! Now I have to hunt down that varmit what was teleported and work out the legal arrangements since there are two of us." > (and it still annoys me that I can think of no non-subjective > experiment which distinguishes between QTI and its theoretical > alternatives). > > Would this change your mind about the whole thing being a case of > short-term memory loss? Would you say that in this case they become > different people - different subjective lines? In my conception of what a *person* is, the answer is no. They're still the same person and would remain so for many years until enough difference had accumulated to make them clearly different people (much as in the same way you are not the four-year-old you once "were"). The software analogy is perfect: people are like programs, and instances are like, well, running instances. And if some hacker makes some small change to Linux, it's still Linux. It is, that is, until so many hacks have been made that it's really not Linux anymore. > If so, what difference does some tiny infinitesimal fraction of worlds > make? Why not say they are two people to begin with, and one line ends? > > I just can't get rid of the apparently basic nature of the question > "What seems to happen next?" I've always called that the horrid "Anticipation Dilemma". At one point in 1986 I couldn't even code because of it: I'd pace the halls at work trying to figure out exactly why I didn't have to anticipate with great relish the dinner I'd had the night before! (I wrote up a version of this and posted it here on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 11:26pm. For some reason, I see that it never made it into the Archives, though I certainly got sent a copy.) > I acknowledge this as probably indicating some kind of very basic > flaw in my understanding, I don't think so. It's just that *anticipation* cannot, so far as I know, be put on an entirely consistent rational basis. I will re-post the essay I wrote to the list in April. Let me know if you don't get it. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 06:58:00 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:58:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) Message-ID: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> The Anticipation Dilemma This discussion will be of little or no use to anyone who does not subscribe to the following assumptions. If you wish to discuss these *assumptions* (all except the last, which is developed further below), either start a new thread with a different title, or write me off-list. Thanks. * the erasure of memories is not an identity-threatening transformation, provided that they are on the order of days or perhaps even a very few years, and you would agree to memory erasure of at least a few days in exchange for suitable monetary reward * duplicates are selves; you would readily agree to die and be replaced by a duplicate of you frozen yesterday and lying in a slab of ice in the next room, if either you or he must be destroyed, and if $10M will be deposited to your bank account tomorrow if it's "you" who dies and "he" who is defrosted and gets to live. We agree that except for one day's memories, you and he are totally identical persons, and so the situation is *exactly* like for $10M agreeing to take a drug that would erase your last 24 hours' memory * because duplicates are selves, as a close duplicate is undergoing an experience X, an instance of you says "even though memories are not being formed *here* at this location of experience X, I am nonetheless forming memories of them because my duplicate is myself; just because the experience is not happening here does not mean it is not happening to me" * insofar as "anticipation"---that is, the feeling of imminent experience about to happen to one---an instance of you also anticipates what is about to happen to close duplicates. As a close duplicate is about to undergo a dreadful experience X, you must consistently try to conjure up the same dread as if this instance (yourself here) itself were being threatened by X * you could conceivably be living in a deterministic simulation, and that from an objective point of view (say by the simulators in a basement level universe) *this* could be the 2nd, 3rd, or nth computation, all bestowing equal additional benefit to you as each run is processed * in principle there could exist a God or an all-knowing being (say an entity simulating the universe you are living in) who either executes so many runs that He finds ones with exceptional properties, or He can conceive of a run that possesses these properties, and for all you know you could be living in such a run. Alternatively, such a deterministic run could arise from a very lucky set of initial conditions, though equivalent descriptions using "God" are simpler to write * it is possible by an application of Newcomb's Paradox to change the past (from your point of view). In particular, there is still the possibility of changing what actually happened to you (as opposed to merely remember or having certain memories). This is fully explained in http://www.leecorbin.com/UseOfNewcombsParadox.html The next assumption is developed in the essay below: * so one may continue to feel that he has "free will" in some scenarios over what choices he made in the past, effected with the help of memory erasure drugs Granting the above, then, I shall attempt to show that our common feeling of anticipation cannot be consistently rationalized. That is, neither the *dread* you have of certain imminent things about to happen to you, nor the near-Pavlovian *relish* you have of certain other imminent experiences, can be consistently and rationally held from one scenario to the next. And this anticipation is crucial to most of us, and is evidently real part of life. Because of "duplicates are selves", however, it's important to delimit some kinds of anticipation. Suppose for example that you and your duplicate are in nearby beds in a hospital, and you and all your duplicates have internalized that "duplicates are selves". Now Nurse Ratched approaches one of you and says "either you---that is, your particular instance---gets this incredibly painful shot, or your duplicate next to you gets TEN shots, which will it be?". However much we realize that duplicates are selves, our lower level animal instincts forbid us from making consistently the right choice. In other words, even though I *know* that I'll be better off ---more total universal benefit for me---if I want to say "do it to me", I will in fact say "do it to him", at least after enough experiences with Nurse Ratched's needle. But this is not yet the real problem with anticipation, for it can be claimed (and I do) that it is to be expected that the lower, animal parts of our selves will have this almost instinctive response to pain. I do not identify with these lower level aspects of my self, and will edit them out entirely if ever uploaded. The parts of me that I *do* identify with are (a) having a good time (b) learning interesting things (c) delighting in understanding, and so forth. I do not identify with the part of me that is a slave to coercion from pain or with parts of me that are motivated from entirely prurient, crude, depraved, or vulgar stimuli. We come now to the most difficult antimony having to do with identity that has ever vexed me. Suppose that we try to rationalize anticipation---as above---so that, for example, in the preceding example, an instance says to himself "so long as I am able, I will choose one experience of Nurse Ratched's needle, as opposed to ten experiences, because I totally identify with all my duplicates and must logically anticipate what happens to any of them". But since me yesterday is a close duplicate, I must anticipate what happens to him also; therefore, I must look forward to the delicious dinner I had last night as much as I do the one I'm about to have tonight. That's it in a nutshell. Yet there is an argument concerning time that must be overcome. That is, for the sake of completeness, the objection that experiences in the past are somehow different from future experiences has to be addressed. The remainder of this essay is only to justify the foregoing conclusion of this paragraph. That's it; that's the "Anticipation Dilemma". _______________________________________________________________ Why Past Experiences Must be Anticipated as Much as Future Ones It is to be shown in detail that anticipating tonight's repast is no more justified than anticipating last night's, on any ordinary meaning of "anticipate". Suppose that it is the year 999 A.D. and God knows that you will live in the 21st century, and knows all the details of your life. God realizes that on October 1, 2007, you will wish to time-travel back to October 1, 999 A.D., so God decides to cause an exception in the otherwise totally causally deterministic run of that day in 999, in that out of nowhere a 2007 version of you suddenly appears in a small village outside London. Now this isn't so easy for God to calculate, because whatever effects you produce in 999 will causally affect the 21st century. God therefore finds a "fixed point" in which a you comes into being in the 20th or 21st century according to the deterministic calculations that is consistent with some manner of your activities in 999. You live an ordinary day in October 1, 999, presumably having a good time checking out the local history. That night, however, you wish to get back in your time machine and live an ordinary October 2, 2007 back in the twenty- first century. But God has foreseen this (of course), and you do. Likewise on successive days you live alternately in the 10th century and in the 21st century. Suppose on October 3, 999 you schedule a most desirable experience with the locals, either, say a fine repast with the village elders, or perhaps a tryst with one of the fair maidens of the town, and this is to happen on October 5, 999. Then when you are back in the 21st century on October 4, 2007, you reflect on the curiosity that you are actually looking forward to something that formally happened in the past. That's all right, because it's still in your future. Everything proceeds/proceeded exactly in this way. Then another opportunity arises on October 7, 999 A.D. that will be consummated on October 9, 999. But this time there is a twist. On the morning of October 9 back in the medieval village you are to be given/was given an injection that will erase (erased) your last 48 hours of memory. In other words, on the morning of October 9 you will wake up and believe it to be October 7 (until the locals clue you in). The highly desirable event that you relish proceeds anyway, though back in the future on October 8 2007, this all seems stranger still. For you now must look forward to something not only in the past, but which no memory superset of you will ever experience! Yet just because your present memories are to be tampered with, future delights are not any the less appealing. Recall that by agreeing to commit suicide so that your duplicate frozen yesterday gets $10M, you are nonetheless looking forward to all the great things you (as your duplicate) will do with the money. What we have reached is the uncomfortable conclusion that what happens to you (or happened to you) in the past is every bit as worthy of anticipation as events that are scheduled to happen in your future. This demolishes any rational or consistent use of *anticipation* that I have ever been able to formulate. This is most unfortunate, because feelings of anticipation are hardwired at a very fundamental level into our selves and our motivations. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 15 07:40:25 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] r.i.p. ladybird johnson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <701462.37744.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jef Allbright wrote: > Which is why this thread highlights the importance > of clear speech, > whether it's about comming on rotomcycles (or > camels), or violating > local statues or ordinances. Yes. But what if the local statues insist on violating one another? For instance this might qualify: http://photos1.blogger.com/photoInclude/x/blogger/5639/2020/1600/342837/statues2do0.jpg Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 09:03:25 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:03:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Not going to Chicago Message-ID: <470a3c520707150203j799baf4j871ffc77ed79f88e@mail.gmail.com> So I cannot make it this time. More on my blog: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/the_former_executive_director_of_the_wta_is_not_going_to_transvision_2007/ Too bad, it would have been a real pleasure to see all you people there. Next time, and have a great Transvision. G. From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 10:39:01 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:39:01 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change In-Reply-To: <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <01e001c7b3d7$4c627550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <021a01c7b49c$95d72030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 15/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Now that's logic for you. Since it's not the same season it was a few > months ago, then it must follow logically that today it's not the same > season it was yesterday. On the contrary, logic grabs you by the throat > and forces you to admit that things change gradually. > > Okay, so Gordon a.k.a. is a convenient fiction. What do you care > whether this convenient fiction lives or dies? There is no absolute sense in which it is the same season today as it was yesterday. The Earth moves in its orbit every day and it is only by convention, not by logic, that we decide there are four seasons in a year. With personal identity it is stronger than convention, since we have a very profound psychological tendency to believe that we are the same person from day to day. This is a useful belief from an evolutionary point of view, perhaps the single most useful belief. Nevertheless, it is possible to deny this belief without being guilty of either an error of logic or an error of fact, because in the end "same person" is just as much a matter of convention as "same season". -- Stathis Papaioannou From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 10:41:16 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:41:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> On 7/15/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > What we have reached is the uncomfortable conclusion that > what happens to you (or happened to you) in the past is > every bit as worthy of anticipation as events that are > scheduled to happen in your future. This demolishes any > rational or consistent use of *anticipation* that I have > ever been able to formulate. This is most unfortunate, > because feelings of anticipation are hardwired at a very > fundamental level into our selves and our motivations. > Didn't we conclude last time we had this conversation that this is only true in strange situations such as the one you describe? Anticipation is an evolved heuristic that says "pay attention to those segments of spacetime whose utility one can causally influence"; in most practical situations that means your future self, or the future selves of people close to you, so it remains rational to anticipate tonight's dinner but not last night's. The heuristic isn't perfect in all conceivable situations of course, but then no heuristic is. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 11:49:49 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:49:49 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity In-Reply-To: <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <01f901c7b488$40852cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <023301c7b4db$a4feada0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 15/07/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Suppose we permit the quantum theory of immortality, so that, in a > tiny fraction of worlds, a successor to the original-location commuter > would survive; the disintegrator would malfunction. By QTI it would > feel like the line of subjective experience definitely continued there > (and it still annoys me that I can think of no non-subjective > experiment which distinguishes between QTI and its theoretical > alternatives). The analogous situation in the midazolam example is that a backup (which the drug will not affect) is made and run at the end of the period for which you will experience memory loss, of the order of an hour. If this backup is killed a minute later it is equivalent to the original experiment sans backup, but with the duration of the memory loss being a minute longer. So if you are OK about having midazolam, your backup should be OK about being killed, as Lee suggests. ISTM that you would have to subscribe to one of the following positions: (a) Partial memory loss as experienced with midazolam is OK; dying in the knowledge that a backup of your mind was made a short while ago is also OK. (b) Dying in the knowledge that your line of subjective experience will never continue is bad, even if a backup was made a short while ago; receiving midazolam is equally bad. (c) If you accept (a), then you accept that the permanent end of your line of subjective experience is not bad. If this was the main thing that you feared when you feared death, rather than the fact that no-one will be around to continue your projects after you are gone, then you should no longer fear death, and the existence of a recent backup should be irrelevant. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 12:13:55 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 05:13:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories (was Next Moment Around You...) References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <01e001c7b3d7$4c627550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <021a01c7b49c$95d72030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Lee wrote: >> [Gordon wrote] >> > I'm quite certain I'm not the same person I seemed to be at age five and >> > in my view it follows logically that neither am I the same person I seemed >> > to be five minutes ago. >> >> Now that's logic for you. Since it's not the same season it was a few >> months ago, then it must follow logically that today it's not the same >> season it was yesterday. On the contrary, logic grabs you by the throat >> and forces you to admit that things change gradually. >> >> Okay, so Gordon a.k.a. [gts] is a convenient fiction. What do you care >> whether this convenient fiction lives or dies? > > There is no absolute sense in which it is the same season today as it > was yesterday. The Earth moves in its orbit every day and it is only > by convention, not by logic, that we decide there are four seasons in > a year. Somewhat bad example on my part. My example is rescued only by the informal usage in which season's have no exact beginning and ending days. I should have said "ancient times" vs. "modern times", and pointed out that just because Julius Caesar lived in ancient times, so yesterday must have been ancient times too (by my alleged imputation of what Gordon was saying). You are right, though: it isn't by *logic* (at least in the strict sense), it's by the natural naming convention that says that anything that changes imperceptively over time is deemed to be "the same", and that this captures an incredibly important truth about reality. > With personal identity it is stronger than convention, since > we have a very profound psychological tendency to believe that we are > the same person from day to day. This is a useful belief from an > evolutionary point of view, perhaps the single most useful belief. Do you believe that a particular large stone in your garden is the same stone it was yesterday? Now, we know all the facts: we know that the wind dislodged a very, very relatively few molecules and that a relatively very few particles also accumulated on its surface that did not use to belong to the rock. But it is not *merely* a useful belief to say that it is the same rock. Because if you cannot say that this rock is "the same rock" as it was yesterday, then you are slipping away into nominalism (and if that doesn't scare you I don't know what will :-) Categories exist and are real. And firmly maintaining that the old oak tree (before it burned down) was *not* the rock in your garden is as ontologically correct as it is to say that the rock in your garden that changed only infinitesimally *is* the same rock as it was yesterday. > Nevertheless, it is possible to deny this belief without being guilty > of either an error of logic Touche. > or an error of fact, because in the end "same person" is just as much > a matter of convention as "same season". We still disagree here. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 12:23:07 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:23:07 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity In-Reply-To: <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <01f901c7b488$40852cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <023301c7b4db$a4feada0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 15/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > I've always called that the horrid "Anticipation Dilemma". At one point > in 1986 I couldn't even code because of it: I'd pace the halls at work > trying to figure out exactly why I didn't have to anticipate with great > relish the dinner I'd had the night before! The problem goes away if you acknowledge that there is no *logical* reason to consider that you are the same person from moment to moment, but rather that it is just a matter of evolutionary expedience. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 12:24:08 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 05:24:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > On 7/15/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > What we have reached is the uncomfortable conclusion that > > what happens to you (or happened to you) in the past is > > every bit as worthy of anticipation as events that are > > scheduled to happen in your future. This demolishes any > > rational or consistent use of *anticipation* that I have > > ever been able to formulate. This is most unfortunate, > > because feelings of anticipation are hardwired at a very > > fundamental level into our selves and our motivations. > > Didn't we conclude last time we had this conversation that > this is only true in strange situations such as the one you > describe? Anticipation is an evolved heuristic that says > "pay attention to those segments of spacetime whose utility > one can causally influence"; in most practical situations that > means your future self, or the future selves of people close > to you, so it remains rational to anticipate tonight's dinner > but not last night's. The heuristic isn't perfect in all conceivable > situations of course, but then no heuristic is. Yes, you're right: I think we did. We know what anticipation is. It's just an evolutionarily derived useful bias to treasure future beneficial or pleasant events and work for their recurrence. But it's an *overpowering* sense, and it is what keeps a lot of people from understanding (in my opinion) that duplicates are selves. Evolution made a rough approximation: don't identify with anything outside your skin in the sense of anticipating actually feeling their pain. The patternist view of identity suggests that this "bio-unit is all important" bias should be replaced with a "this pattern is all important". But the present day feelings of anticipation cannot, so far as I know, be consistently worked into providing guidance between choice A and choice B in these unusal cases (as you say). You are probably right about there being no perfect heuristic; but anticipation is *so* overwhelmingly powerful as a guide to action that it poses a real problem. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 13:10:04 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:10:04 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories (was Next Moment Around You...) In-Reply-To: <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <021a01c7b49c$95d72030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 15/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Do you believe that a particular large stone in your garden is the > same stone it was yesterday? Now, we know all the facts: we > know that the wind dislodged a very, very relatively few molecules > and that a relatively very few particles also accumulated on its > surface that did not use to belong to the rock. > > But it is not *merely* a useful belief to say that it is the same rock. > Because if you cannot say that this rock is "the same rock" as it > was yesterday, then you are slipping away into nominalism (and > if that doesn't scare you I don't know what will :-) > > Categories exist and are real. And firmly maintaining that the old > oak tree (before it burned down) was *not* the rock in your garden > is as ontologically correct as it is to say that the rock in your garden > that changed only infinitesimally *is* the same rock as it was yesterday. Only because, by convention, we agree that a few atoms missing and a very large displacement in space and time are still consistent with the term "same rock". And it isn't so straightforward if we decide to destroy the rock and then recreate a copy, or a functionally similar analogue - whatever that might mean for a rock - as we propose to someday do with people. The degree of similarity is only contingently related to the question of continuity of personal identity. As you have pointed out, it is usual to be more concerned about what will happen to me tomorrow than what happened to me yesterday, even though my tomorrow self and my yesterday self are roughly equivalent in similarity to my today self. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 13:11:21 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 06:11:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Jews and Gentiles Message-ID: <0b1701c7c6e1$d650a8a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Recall the old joke: Abbe, a sincere and dedicated Jew realized he was dying, and on his deathbed told his wife, "Quick, call a priest!" "But Abbe!", she exclaimed, "Here you have a been a completely devout Jew your entire life. Why on Earth do you want a priest?" "I want to convert to Catholicism!" "But why, Abbe?" "It's better for one of them die than one of us!" Now I was totally innocent American white shortbread, abysmally ignorant of what religions or cultural practices my ancestors subscribed to back more than one or two generations. (They were generally Protestants of one kind or another, but ignorant as the hills.) I had no clue, even in my late twenties, how rent most societies were by tribal, ethnic, and religious rivalries. When as a boy we joked about Italian gangsters on TV, we just thought that it was the funny way they talked, and that in reality everyone saw everyone else as "the same", (except black people who were colored funny and Asian people who had strange facial characteristics, and Mexicans who'd been out in the sun too much). Utterly no clue. Meeting anyone on the street---except those very rare aforesaid instances of people who seemed like foreigners to me ---I intuited a strong symmetry: they were just like me in all important ways (forgetting very surface differences in education or attitude, etc.). Then at age 29 I went back to school to learn something about computers, and ran into a statistics professor who was *very* Jewish. We got to be friends (or at least friendly in the way that sometimes students and teachers sometimes get to to talking about other things after the student has shown up in the professor's office with a question about class). It didn't take him long to get to talking about Jews and their accomplishments. For example, one day he announced that some really smart Omaha ten-year- old boy had just been accepted at some college back east, and said "That's got to be the smarted kid ever to come out of Omaha!". The point of his story was that the kid was Jewish. I retorted that Von Neumann had converted to Catholicism on his deathbed (this was before I heard the old joke). "So what", said the professor, "he was born Jewish and raised Jewish". I was stunned, and had no reply. I hadn't realized that many Jews (correctly, of course) saw themselves as a separate people. (Now "assimilated Jews" are another story---people are free to look at these things any way they want.) What I should have asked him, however, was this: "Suppose my friend who has been thinking about doing so converts to Judaism tomorrow. Is he then a Jew?" He would have had to explain the whole thing to me, I guess. The truth is that many people are tribalists and many are not; many give a whit about what happens to "their people" after they're gone, and many don't. I don't think that there is a "right" or "correct" attitude. Evolutionarily, of course, caring about what happens to "your people" or "your group" or "your tribe" is an ESS. (That's Evolutionarily Stable Strategy for the unwashed among you.) Patriotism is another ESS, and in 19th and 20th century western civilization, those groups who possessed it had an advantage over those who didn't. At least from the survival of the group perspective, which, again may or may not be important to one. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 13:20:12 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:20:12 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 15/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Evolution made a rough approximation: don't identify with > anything outside your skin in the sense of anticipating actually > feeling their pain. The patternist view of identity suggests > that this "bio-unit is all important" bias should be replaced > with a "this pattern is all important". But the present day > feelings of anticipation cannot, so far as I know, be consistently > worked into providing guidance between choice A and choice > B in these unusal cases (as you say). You are probably right > about there being no perfect heuristic; but anticipation is *so* > overwhelmingly powerful as a guide to action that it poses a > real problem. If you can discard this strong feeling of anticipation as a motivator, what's to stop you also discarding the desire to survive at all? -- Stathis Papaioannou From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 13:59:08 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:59:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change Message-ID: <55ad6af70707150659j76132278ldc74c1bc450f2bc@mail.gmail.com> Hi all. I am new to the list, and have something to contribute. > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:56:51 -0400, Lee Corbin > wrote: > >> A problem I see is that your will may change from hour to hour >> (possibly depending on mood, or even caffeine and so forth), >> as I go into more below. > > I don't see that as a problem. As I wrote to Stathis in another message, I > view continuity of self as no more than a convenient fiction, > philosophically speaking. > > I'm quite certain I'm not the same person I seemed to be at age five and > in my view it follows logically that neither am I the same person I seemed > to be five minutes ago. Since this was on my "to research" list yesterday, it is still fresh in my brain (as if that has anything to do with thinking): cryonics. The reason why we must bring ourselves to become ultracold is so that we may eliminate those interactions within and those interactions surrounding our bodies. Previously on the orions_arm mailing list, I had written about the future of mysophobiacs. These are the people that are sick with disgust of the mess and filth that makes up our world: the filth of proteins dripping from our skin every hour, the grime between the slabs of sidewalk by the road; the hell that makes up their local dump. If ever a mysophobiac was to solve his problem completely, I would expect him to build himself into cryopreservation. After all, to attain the ultracold states, you must be ultraclean. Ask the UHV physicists and they could possibly get an acquired headache on the spot. But this is more fiction than anything practical. And so to make up for this mostly fiction making, let me link over to my notes on cryonics. Warning, the file is ~1.6 megabytes in size: http://heybryan.org/bookmarks/kanzure_bookmarks_July15th02007.html#2.7 I look forward to discussions on the list :) - Bryan From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jul 15 15:27:12 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 08:27:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom In-Reply-To: <0ab801c7c69b$d094ed40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200707151538.l6FFc5Y3008975@lily.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ...One woman acquaintance of mine insists not?only that everyone in the household recycle all plastic bottles, but that?they all be *washed* before being left for the recyclers. If you try pointing out to?her that the recycling machinery washes the containers anyway, and as new plastic items are manufactured the plastic undergoes chemical cleansing processes... Lee Lee you must point out to her that by washing the bottles, she is actually *wasting* water, which at least partially defeats the environmental advantages of recycling. I am interested in what happens when the recycling promoters become aware that watering lawns actually saves water, or more precisely, recycles water. If we pull water out of wells and the river, irrigate lawns and fill swimming pools, the water evaporates, then goes into the atmosphere to fall again, thus being recycled using nature's tools: sunlight and plants. What do we tell the children, who have been indoctrinated that watering lawns hurts Mother Earth? spike From scerir at libero.it Sun Jul 15 15:24:39 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:24:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Aharonov-Bohm Effect (was Precognition on TV) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com><4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no><7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070315175649.022ec7e8@satx.rr.com><003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070318140758.0236d6c8@satx.rr.com><002b01c76a51$5dbfbad0$0fba1f97@archimede> <0aa301c7c695$8165d5f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <000601c7c6f4$44273ad0$70b91f97@archimede> Lee: > As I understand it, this "Aharonov-Bohm" effect > that you mention really depends on electromagnetic > *potential*. Heretofore, was not this potential > merely a mathematical convenience? (I mean that as > a serious question.) In classical physics the 4-potential, A_mu, is regarded as a 'mathematical' construct, devoided of any physical significance in itself, but useful in computing the 'fields' which, in turn, generate physical observable effects, by acting on the charges, accelerating them, affecting their energies and momenta. The A-B effect is interesting exactly because there is a real, physical, observable effect on charged particles, ascribable to the 4-potential A_mu, even when the field, say the EM tensor F_mu nu, is zero. The two important features of the A-B effect in fact are: a) the magnetic field is confined in a region completely inaccessible to electrons, and electrons propagate in a region where EM fields are zero; b) the vector potential A must instead be nonvanishing in the region where electrons propagate, and this last condition is not so difficult to reach, since it follows from the well known Stokes theorem - altough it ceases to be applicable in more complex A-B effects, with 'switching' magnetic fluxes - and from the Schroedinger equation. But from what you wrote here below it seems you are interested in a sort of ontology of the vector potential. And you are right. This is a very difficult, deep, subtle question. I'll write something later. > Why action at a distance?? Can't potential be looked > upon as a field phenomenon? After all, look at > gravitational potential, which is so much easier for > us amateurs to think about. Sure, preRelativity folks > would say that *everything* about the trajectory > of an object in a grav field followed Newton's Laws > to a T. (No pun intended.) But now we know that > even if you magically had "gravitational shielding" > the clock would run more slowly depending on > gravitational *potential* nothing more nothing less. From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jul 15 15:43:20 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 08:43:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70707150659j76132278ldc74c1bc450f2bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200707151553.l6FFrhA1011895@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Bishop > ... > > ... the filth of proteins dripping from our skin every hour > ...After all, to attain the ultracold states, you must be ultraclean... > > - Bryan Why so? All that greasy grimy goo that makes up us will freeze up solid just the same as all the nice clean water in our tissues. Welcome Bryan spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 17:33:18 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:33:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] There are Infinitely Many Numbers, But Each of them is Finite (reply to Bryan Bishop) References: <55ad6af70707150659j76132278ldc74c1bc450f2bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0b2101c7c706$4170ef40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Hi Bryan, Welcome to the list! By the way, one really should change the subject line whenever they're a significant change of subject. If you've perused our archives at all, you'll see the pattern, and see how (just to help an archive reviewer) sometimes the construction [Exi] (was ) is used, except the [Exi] part is automatically generated and need not be added by you. When there is *no* connection, then make *no* "(was..." construction). I perused the cryonics section's titles. It all looked pretty familiar (I've been signed up for nearly 20 years, and many people here are signed up with either Alcor or CI.) Is there something in particular about it that you wanted to discuss? Also, your list of essays and references looks like a non-trivial subset of the entire web! A list, evidently (so far as I have had time to peruse it) reflecting good taste! Ahem, on to the meat. One entry you list is http://www.marknielsen.net/Math/Counting/Diagonalization/Diagonalization_Disproof2.html which is a fun construction that produces a list of Very Rational numbers, where I am defining Very Rational (Decimal Fractions) to be those that terminate after a finite number of digits. The list you create begins 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.01, 0.11, 0.21, 0.31, 0.41, 0.51, 0.61, 0.71, 0.81, 0.91, 0.02, 0.12, 0.22, 0.32, 0.42, 0.52, 0.62, 0.72, 0.82, 0.92, 0.03, 0.13, 0.23, 0.33, 0.43, 0.53, 0.63, 0.73, 0.83, 0.93, The problem is that all these *are* indeed rational, but that the *infinite* string produced by the diagonalization is *not* rational. So of course it does not appear on the list. The Step 5 of the ISSUES SECTION illustrates the error. It reads Step 5: "Also, the sequence 0.33333... and so on is in my set D. There is no single entry which matches 1/3, but if can accept that a sequence 0.33333... is equal to 1/3, then after my list has been generated, 1/3 is in the list. --- I think." is mistaken. All the numbers 0.3 0.33 0.333 0.3333 0.33333 0.333333 ... is in the list, but the writer apparently does not understand that the *infinite* string .333333333... does not anywhere appear on the list! Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Bishop" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change > Hi all. I am new to the list, and have something to contribute. > But this is more fiction than anything practical. And so to make up > for this mostly fiction making, let me link over to my notes on > cryonics. Warning, the file is ~1.6 megabytes in size: > http://heybryan.org/bookmarks/kanzure_bookmarks_July15th02007.html#2.7 > > I look forward to discussions on the list :) > > - Bryan > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 17:35:40 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:35:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <01f901c7b488$40852cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <023301c7b4db$a4feada0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 15/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> I've always called that the horrid "Anticipation Dilemma". At one point >> in 1986 I couldn't even code because of it: I'd pace the halls at work >> trying to figure out exactly why I didn't have to anticipate with great >> relish the dinner I'd had the night before! > > The problem goes away if you acknowledge that there is no *logical* > reason to consider that you are the same person from moment to moment, > but rather that it is just a matter of evolutionary expedience. I think that you are resorting to deconstructing entirely what is meant by "person". So can you tell me just what it is that you hope survives from month to month? Lee From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 16:24:06 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:24:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change In-Reply-To: <200707151553.l6FFrhA1011895@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <55ad6af70707150659j76132278ldc74c1bc450f2bc@mail.gmail.com> <200707151553.l6FFrhA1011895@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <55ad6af70707150924n4e73bcdfyf8f4774e79566ed6@mail.gmail.com> On 7/15/07, spike wrote: > Why so? All that greasy grimy goo that makes up us will freeze up solid > just the same as all the nice clean water in our tissues. "Beneath the filth, frozen you'd persist. Influence you, the mess would not." In reality, since we cannot attain absolute zero temperature, everything would still be operating but at an incredibly reduced rate, and I am sure we can do some calculations to see how long it would take for the human body to radiate one second's worth of energy at different ultrasmall Torr (atmospheric pressure) values. A year? Two? Four? Eight? Re: "Next moment, [...] you will probably change," as you approach that zero temperature, the probability of change reduces. Right? > Welcome Bryan Thank you. :) I think I like it here. - Bryan From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 17:45:59 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:45:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com> Message-ID: <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes > Lee Corbin [wrote] > > > ...One woman acquaintance of mine insists not only that everyone in the > > household recycle all plastic bottles, but that they all be *washed* before > > being left for the recyclers. If you try pointing out to her that the > > recycling machinery washes the containers anyway, and as new plastic items > > are manufactured the plastic undergoes chemical cleansing processes... Lee > > Lee you must point out to her that by washing the bottles, she is actually > *wasting* water, which at least partially defeats the environmental > advantages of recycling. Ah, yet an even better argument! But difficult as it is for a rational person who doesn't happen to have this particular compulsion to "sacrifice for the common good" to understand what is really going on, we have to realize that the entire effort is really just symbolic. (I hate symbolism.) > I am interested in what happens when the recycling promoters become aware > that watering lawns actually saves water, or more precisely, recycles water. Hmm. Does it also help replenish the ground water used by wells? I do get your point: it's not like the water just disappears. > If we pull water out of wells and the river, irrigate lawns and fill > swimming pools, the water evaporates, then goes into the atmosphere to fall > again, thus being recycled using nature's tools: sunlight and plants. What > do we tell the children, who have been indoctrinated that watering lawns > hurts Mother Earth? Hitler emphasized that the key ingredient of the Big Lie is that it be told more and more often, and, if necessary, louder and louder. In other words, just step up the indoctrination in those areas where contrary memes may accidently drift within range of the children. Lee P.S. I really am not trying to set a new record for the illustration of Godwin's Law here. But if Guiness really is interested, it's "Lee Corbin, Santa Clara, California, 408-261-1584, lcorbin at rawbw.com". From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 17:52:39 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:52:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 15/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Evolution made a rough approximation: don't identify with >> anything outside your skin in the sense of anticipating actually >> feeling their pain. The patternist view of identity suggests >> that this "bio-unit is all important" bias should be replaced >> with a "this pattern is all important". But the present day >> feelings of anticipation cannot, so far as I know, be consistently >> worked into providing guidance between choice A and choice >> B in these unusal cases (as you say). You are probably right >> about there being no perfect heuristic; but anticipation is *so* >> overwhelmingly powerful as a guide to action that it poses a >> real problem. > > If you can discard this strong feeling of anticipation as a motivator, > what's to stop you also discarding the desire to survive at all? Hmm, sorry if I implied somewhere that I'd remove anticipation as a motivator if I could (e.g. after uploading). Heavens, no. It's just that in some very specially new and contrived---well, new, special, and contrived in 2007, not in 2107---situations, anticipation suggests an *incorrect* choice between A and B. That is, you really are better of by choosing to have your instance perish so that your duplicate gets rich. Or, as an alternative, you are better off today if at 3pm last night a copy was made, and at 4pm the original you was disintegrated, and at 5pm your duplicate was substituted for the original instance, and voila! you awake to discover you're rich. Lee From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jul 15 17:59:09 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:59:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom In-Reply-To: <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com> <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> >> > ...One woman acquaintance of mine insists not only that everyone in the >> > household recycle all plastic bottles, but that they all be *washed* before >> > being left for the recyclers. In our household all recylable food containers are washed. Reason: collection is only once per week. In some areas of town it is only once every *two* weeks. (think bugs, rodents, smell) And why do we recycle? Mainly because we are *fined* if there is not a recyle container out once per month... at least that is the threat. I do not actually believe that the trash collectors are really keeping track of when we put out those blue bags of cans and bottles. However, I've been wrong before! ;) Regards, MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun Jul 15 18:07:04 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Post-Mortal Syndrome In-Reply-To: <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com> <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us> Damien, now that I can post again, I wanted to tell you and Barbara how much I enjoyed the book! It was interesting that during the ExI list downtime there was a discussion on another list about online books and long papers. One or two people mentioned that they were happy with such presentations, but the vast majority said they did not enjoy reading books online because they found it tiring or they preferred to read lying down or some other such reason (like making notes in the margins). I surmise they would have been generally happy with your chapter by chapter format. :) Regards, MB From scerir at libero.it Sun Jul 15 18:27:53 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:27:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Aharonov-Bohm Effect (was Precognition on TV) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com><4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no><7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070315175649.022ec7e8@satx.rr.com><003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070318140758.0236d6c8@satx.rr.com><002b01c76a51$5dbfbad0$0fba1f97@archimede> <0aa301c7c695$8165d5f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <000301c7c70d$dca19df0$33921f97@archimede> Lee: > Why action at a distance?? Can't potential be looked > upon as a field phenomenon? After all, look at > gravitational potential, which is so much easier for > us amateurs to think about. Sure, preRelativity folks > would say that *everything* about the trajectory > of an object in a grav field followed Newton's Laws > to a T. (No pun intended.) But now we know that > even if you magically had "gravitational shielding" > the clock would run more slowly depending on > gravitational *potential* nothing more nothing less. As you remember the famous psi-wavefunction of QM has its roots in Einstein's conception of 'Gespensterfelder' (a ghost field, *devoid of momentum and energy*, guiding the particles). Even Bohr conceded that Einstein's use of such picturesque phrases as Gespensterfelder 'implied no tendency to mysticism, but illuminated rather a profound humor behind his piercing remarks.' As you also remember the very concept of ghost field (ghost waves) has been developed by deBroglie and, later, by Bohm (with his Bohmian mechanics). In Bohmian mechanics a solution of the Schroedinger eq. is regarded as an objectively existing real field - not so so different from the 'Gespensterfelder' (though in general it does propagate in a 3n-dimensional configuration space) - which guides the particle trough its trajectory. Moreover the action of this real field on a particle is non-classical (since the particle is assumed not to react *dynamically* on the real field acting on it) and is represented by a suitably defined 'quantum potential Q', whose features are different from the classical potentials, and whose exact mathematical expression can be deduced from the solution of the Schroedinger eq., written in a specific form. For sure you have already realized it is a logically compelling requirement of any theory using test-particles and (ghost or real) field concepts that there is a 'dialectical' interplay between particles and fields. In the A-B effect the situation is somewhat conceptually analogous to that in classical electrodynamics (and maybe in gravitation, as you pointed out) where the abstract notion of fields has a physical manifestation only by the action (non classical though) on charged particles. In the A-B example the action of the 'Gespensterfelder' on each individual electron changes its trajectory, due to the presence of the quantum potential (vector potential) and results in the overall shift of the interference pattern, even if the 'Gespensterfelder' is devoid of momentum and energy, and even if the EM tensor (F_mu nu) is zero. (This is the reason why sometimes people say that in the A-B effect the momentum and energy conservation principles do not hold). Summing up, what can we say? It is a rather messy situation. Ghost fields, invented by Einstein (around 1909/1912 I think) are still there. Like any other ghost they appear, from time to time. From sentience at pobox.com Sun Jul 15 18:32:54 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:32:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories (was Next Moment Around You...) In-Reply-To: <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <01e001c7b3d7$4c627550$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <021a01c7b49c$95d72030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <469A6856.30504@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > Somewhat bad example on my part. My example is rescued only by > the informal usage in which season's have no exact beginning and ending > days. I should have said "ancient times" vs. "modern times", and pointed > out that just because Julius Caesar lived in ancient times, so yesterday > must have been ancient times too (by my alleged imputation of what > Gordon was saying). I've *always* lived in ancient times and I still find it a little disturbing when someone completely lacks all sense of historical perspective to such a degree that they do not even realize they are living in the unthinkably distant past. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 18:30:28 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:30:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Aharonov-Bohm Effect (was Precognition on TV) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com><4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no><7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070315175649.022ec7e8@satx.rr.com><003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070318140758.0236d6c8@satx.rr.com><002b01c76a51$5dbfbad0$0fba1f97@archimede> <0aa301c7c695$8165d5f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <000601c7c6f4$44273ad0$70b91f97@archimede> Message-ID: <0b4201c7c70e$aede43e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Serafino writes (and thanks for correcting my spelling error in the subject line!) > Lee [wrote]: > >> As I understand it, this "Aharonov-Bohm" effect >> that you mention really depends on electromagnetic >> *potential*. Heretofore, was not this potential >> merely a mathematical convenience? (I mean that as >> a serious question.) > > In classical physics the 4-potential, A_mu, is regarded > as a 'mathematical' construct, devoided of any physical > significance in itself, but useful in computing the > 'fields' which, in turn, generate physical observable > effects, by acting on the charges, accelerating them, > affecting their energies and momenta. > > The A-B effect is interesting exactly because there > is a real, physical, observable effect on charged > particles, ascribable to the 4-potential A_mu, > even when the field, say the EM tensor F_mu nu, > is zero. Well, doesn't this imply that we were wrong all the time about the potential being "merely" a mathematical construct? (I would throw in the fact that quarks were at first thought to be only a mathematical construct, but that would not really be relevant enough to mention.) Oops. But I see you've addressed this below. > The two important features of the A-B effect > in fact are: a) the magnetic field is confined in > a region completely inaccessible to electrons, and > electrons propagate in a region where EM fields are > zero; Or, in simpler language, other, completely innocent electrons drift by who're supposed to be unaware of what's going on inside the shielded area. > b) the vector potential A must instead be > nonvanishing in the region where electrons propagate, > and this last condition is not so difficult to reach, > since it follows from the well known Stokes theorem > - altough it ceases to be applicable in more complex > A-B effects, with 'switching' magnetic fluxes - and > from the Schroedinger equation. Oh! I had forgotten about that. By an application of Stokes theorem here, you mean simply Gauss's Law that states that the surface integral of an electrical field equals the total charge contained therein? I was thinking that the shielding interfered with that effect. Just dead wrong, eh? > But from what you wrote here below it seems you are > interested in a sort of ontology of the vector > potential. And you are right. This is a very > difficult, deep, subtle question. I'll write > something later. thanks, Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 18:37:51 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:37:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com><0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <0b4301c7c70f$62fec890$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> MB writes > [Lee wrote] >>> > ...One woman acquaintance of mine insists not only that everyone in the >>> > household recycle all plastic bottles, but that they all be *washed* before >>> > being left for the recyclers. > > In our household all recylable food containers are washed. Reason: collection is > only once per week. In some areas of town it is only once every *two* weeks. (think > bugs, rodents, smell) Here in the bay area of N. California, these may be less of a problem than you experience. I do, however, rinse them out just so that they're not yechy. > And why do we recycle? Mainly because we are *fined* if there is not a recyle > container out once per month... at least that is the threat. The function of government is to threaten the citizens, and the function of citizens is to support and cower before the government. But in "backwards areas" (e.g. areas more free) like the Deep South, one is almost as at liberty to do with one's trash as we were in the 1930s. Some neighborhoods were clean and some were dirty. It was only starting to occur to people that government could be used to force everyone's lives to be "better". Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 15 19:58:00 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:58:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Post-Mortal Syndrome In-Reply-To: <40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com> <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> <40576.72.236.102.107.1184522824.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070715145107.0219f578@satx.rr.com> At 02:07 PM 7/15/2007 -0400, MB wrote: >Damien, now that I can post again, I wanted to tell you and Barbara how much I >enjoyed the book! Thank you! Please feel encouraged to leave a comment on the COSMOS site saying so! :) (Comments area is at the bottom of the page url'd below.) >One or two people mentioned that >they were happy with such presentations, but the vast majority said >they did not >enjoy reading books online because they found it tiring or they >preferred to read >lying down or some other such reason (like making notes in the >margins). I surmise >they would have been generally happy with your chapter by chapter format. That was our hope. Dunno if it paid off; I suspect a lot of people are too used to reading a paperback when and where they wish. We're hoping to place the novel with a traditional publisher, in which case the serial version will vanish--so anyone interested in reading it free should run not walk (well, stroll languidly, anyway) to: I'm told there have been more than 100,000 page hits so far. Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jul 15 21:09:53 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:09:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destuction of water In-Reply-To: <0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200707152110.l6FLA0jZ013350@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin > Subject: Re: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom > > Spike writes > > > Lee Corbin [wrote] > > > > > ...One woman acquaintance of mine insists not only that everyone in > the household recycle all plastic bottles, but that they all be *washed*... > > > > ... by washing the bottles, she is actually > > *wasting* water, which at least partially defeats the environmental > > advantages of recycling. > > Ah, yet an even better argument! But ... the entire effort is really just symbolic. (I hate symbolism.) Me too Lee. We should have a symbol for those who hate symbolism. Perhaps the most universally recognized symbol is the circle with the diagonal slash, meaning "NO." We could establish the symbol meaning "no symbolism" as a circle with a slash inside of a larger circle with a slash. But since that is itself a symbol, which we oppose, we need a third larger circle with a slash. And so on, indefinitely. Perhaps Anders or one of our other artists could make a symbol which means No No No No...No Symbols...Symbols Symbols Symbols Symbols. > > I am interested in what happens when the recycling promoters become > > aware that watering lawns actually saves water, or more precisely, recycles > water. > > Hmm. Does it also help replenish the ground water used by wells? > I do get your point: it's not like the water just disappears. > ... > > Lee Well actually it does destroy some of the water. If a plant drinks the water, most evaporates and is recycled, but some of the water molecules are BRUTALLY DESTROYED, their hydrogen atoms STRIPPED away, combined with a carbon atom from a similarly destroyed carbon dioxide molecule. The hydrogen atoms are combined with the carbon to make more plant tissue, and the oxygen released into the atmosphere as a biological WASTE product! Some of the water really is GONE. Lost! We must act to save the precious water molecules. {8^D Lee I often wonder if the sudden collapse of religion incorporated in the west has resulted in a vacuum which is filled by an ill-defined earthism. This earthism manifests itself as a mindless set of beliefs, a creed largely beyond reason or debate, its adherents performing illogical rituals which mysteriously fulfill some profound inner drive that organized religion once served to satisfy. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jul 15 21:50:43 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:50:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Post-Mortal Syndrome In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070715145107.0219f578@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200707152150.l6FLooNF010948@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick >... > > ... I suspect a lot of people > are too used to reading a paperback when and where they wish... > > Damien Broderick Ja, but consider that this effect will surely be reversed RSN. The soft copy medium has some critical advantages, at least one of which is obvious to me as presbyopia set in when I was aged 40 years ten minutes. The soft copy can be adjusted to any size font one wishes, using the wonderfully competent and inexpensive flat panel displays that technology has generously bestowed upon those of us fortunate enough to be alive today. Another advantage is that one can do a universal search with soft copy for a single paragraph or sentence. The RSN is for wearable computers, which seem to have stalled for the past few years. Real Soon Now we might reasonably expect good wearable displays in which we can walk about, sit anywhere and read our books, hands free. In those displays I expect the afore-mentioned freedom of font and search ability. Such a device would allow us to carry much of our personal libraries with us as well, but allow me one more point, perhaps the most important one. I have been thinking about trying a combination of novel and adventure game, in which one guides the story line to some extent. My yet-unpublished story has a lot of different characters, 8 main players, at least 20 other smaller parts and perhaps fifty bit players, most of them composites based on friends from college. If written in traditional paperback, it would be a Michener-esque tome, which no one has the time or patience to read in these modern times. In any story, one has one's favorite personalities. It be cool to be able to filter a story, to follow the adventures of one or two characters. We could have the software keep track of what material one has already read, then keep offering more detail on one's chosen characters, or go on to others at will. Then reading a novel becomes more like doing a modern google search, nibbling at one's areas of interest but not trying to actually absorb the entire contents of the internet. Such a format requires soft copy and specialized software. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 15 22:11:20 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:11:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom In-Reply-To: <200707151538.l6FFc5Y3008975@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <0ab801c7c69b$d094ed40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200707151538.l6FFc5Y3008975@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070715170351.0218d308@satx.rr.com> At 08:27 AM 7/15/2007 -0700, Spike wrote: >I am interested in what happens when the recycling promoters become aware >that watering lawns actually saves water, or more precisely, recycles water. >If we pull water out of wells and the river, irrigate lawns and fill >swimming pools, the water evaporates, then goes into the atmosphere to fall >again, thus being recycled using nature's tools: sunlight and plants. What >do we tell the children, who have been indoctrinated that watering lawns >hurts Mother Earth? You're being a bit naughty here, Spike. Extensive monocropping is not a great idea anyway, and besides the water has often been gathered at considerable cost--building dams, pipes, pumps, powering it all, venting heat and pollutants, etc; yes, the water evaporates and falls, but often not where it's needed; more importantly if the water's coming from an ancient aquifer, you're also wasting your birthright on a mess of boring foliage. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 22:38:31 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:38:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destuction of water References: <200707152110.l6FL9uFH044512@mail0.rawbw.com> Message-ID: <0b5001c7c730$ff452e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes > [Lee wrote] >> Hmm. Does it also help replenish the ground water used by wells? >> I do get your point: it's not like the water just disappears. > > Well actually it does destroy some of the water. If a plant drinks the > water, most evaporates and is recycled, but some of the water molecules are > BRUTALLY DESTROYED, their hydrogen atoms STRIPPED away, combined with a > carbon atom from a similarly destroyed carbon dioxide molecule. The > hydrogen atoms are combined with the carbon to make more plant tissue, oops, duh. I knew that. > and the oxygen released into the atmosphere as a biological WASTE > product! Some of the water really is GONE. Lost! We must act to > save the precious water molecules [from the aforesaid brutal destruction > involved in supporting trees, children, and other living things] > > {8^D > > Lee I often wonder if the sudden collapse of religion incorporated in the > west has resulted in a vacuum which is filled by an ill-defined earthism. I knew that! Darn. > This earthism manifests itself as a mindless set of beliefs, a creed largely > beyond reason or debate, its adherents performing illogical rituals which > mysteriously fulfill some profound inner drive that organized religion once > served to satisfy. Yes, I should have recognized this woman's actions for what they are: religious ritualism. And (as for what MB was saying), it's not like she *rinses* them out. They get *washed*. With soap. I say the Earth already has too damn much water, some 3/4 of the whole world is covered with it. It needs to get desalinated and converted into more men, women, and children. And other living things. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 15 22:45:53 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:45:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <021a01c7b49c$95d72030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > [Lee wrote] >> Categories exist and are real. And firmly maintaining that the old >> oak tree (before it burned down) was *not* the rock in your garden >> is as ontologically correct as it is to say that the rock in your garden >> that changed only infinitesimally *is* the same rock as it was yesterday. > > Only because, by convention, we agree that a few atoms missing and a > very large displacement in space and time are still consistent with > the term "same rock". Are you saying that a rock sitting next to a tree have only conventional differences? Yes indeed: quantum fields are all that there is, and we do not anymore have the Newtonian vacuum of space in which objects exist. But these *lumps* the the quantum fields are real lumps, and very distinct. When you write "by convention, we agree" you surely admit that any intelligent evolutionarily derived organism will detect these same real categories that we do. Are you a nominalist? I appreciate your remarks about personal identity below, but this thread is about something I consider to be even more fundamental, the ancient squabble between empiricists, realists, nominalists, and idealists. I'm reading a book "How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?" which makes a strong case that QFT supports and affirms realism. Lee >And it isn't so straightforward if we decide to > destroy the rock and then recreate a copy, or a functionally similar > analogue - whatever that might mean for a rock - as we propose to > someday do with people. > > The degree of similarity is only contingently related to the question > of continuity of personal identity. As you have pointed out, it is > usual to be more concerned about what will happen to me tomorrow than > what happened to me yesterday, even though my tomorrow self and my > yesterday self are roughly equivalent in similarity to my today self. From moses2k at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 23:13:59 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:13:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Post-Mortal Syndrome In-Reply-To: <200707152150.l6FLooNF010948@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070715145107.0219f578@satx.rr.com> <200707152150.l6FLooNF010948@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <3aff9e290707151613rfcb27em171c11e191d74fba@mail.gmail.com> On 7/15/07, spike wrote: > > > I have been thinking about trying a combination of novel and adventure > game, > in which one guides the story line to some extent. My yet-unpublished > story > has a lot of different characters, 8 main players, at least 20 other > smaller > parts and perhaps fifty bit players, most of them composites based on > friends from college. If written in traditional paperback, it would be a > Michener-esque tome, which no one has the time or patience to read in > these > modern times. > > In any story, one has one's favorite personalities. It be cool to be able > to filter a story, to follow the adventures of one or two characters. We > could have the software keep track of what material one has already read, > then keep offering more detail on one's chosen characters, or go on to > others at will. Then reading a novel becomes more like doing a modern > google search, nibbling at one's areas of interest but not trying to > actually absorb the entire contents of the internet. > > Such a format requires soft copy and specialized software. > > spike > > If you're thinking interactive fiction, I can recommend the Inform 7 engine. http://www.inform-fiction.org/I7/Inform%207.html Do you imagine the software would need to be more specialized than this, such as adding an IF program to a 3D engine, as a kind of graphic/text adventure game creation hybrid? -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dmasten at piratelabs.org Sun Jul 15 23:02:33 2007 From: dmasten at piratelabs.org (David Masten) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:02:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] destuction of water In-Reply-To: <200707152110.l6FLA0jZ013350@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <200707152110.l6FLA0jZ013350@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1184540553.3635.98.camel@xa-1.prd.terraluna.org> On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 14:09 -0700, spike wrote: > Well actually it does destroy some of the water. If a plant drinks the > water, most evaporates and is recycled, but some of the water molecules are > BRUTALLY DESTROYED, their hydrogen atoms STRIPPED away, combined with a > carbon atom from a similarly destroyed carbon dioxide molecule. The > hydrogen atoms are combined with the carbon to make more plant tissue, and > the oxygen released into the atmosphere as a biological WASTE product! Some > of the water really is GONE. Lost! We must act to save the precious water > molecules. Never fear! We take those oxygen molecules and hydrocarbon molecules and reassemble them into water in our rocket engines, thus closing the loop. Fully recycled! Dave From joseph at josephbloch.com Sun Jul 15 23:51:06 2007 From: joseph at josephbloch.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:51:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom In-Reply-To: <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com><0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <01b701c7c73b$03529490$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of MB > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 1:59 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom > > In our household all recylable food containers are washed. Reason: collection is > only once per week. In some areas of town it is only once every *two* weeks. > (think bugs, rodents, smell) Our recycling collection is only once a month. I pity those people who don't have a garage to stage all the cans and bottles in. > And why do we recycle? Mainly because we are *fined* if there is not a recyle > container out once per month... at least that is the threat. I do not actually > believe that the trash collectors are really keeping track of when we put out those > blue bags of cans and bottles. However, I've been wrong before! ;) I've actually had times where the trash collectors have refused to take soda 12-pack boxes in the regular trash because "it's cardboard". This, despite the fact that our town's recycling ordinance specifically states only heavy-duty corrugated cardboard is to be recycled (which is, apparently, different from some of the surrounding towns). Several rounds of phone calls between me, the trash company, and the town proved fruitless, and I just found my own solution. Put the *$#&! boxes in a garbage bag, and the trash collectors are none the wiser. Joseph http://www.josephbloch.com From joseph at josephbloch.com Sun Jul 15 23:53:52 2007 From: joseph at josephbloch.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:53:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Transhumanism and regulation In-Reply-To: <24346a000707150742t3fcea126u84b83a272c20a7c0@mail.gmail.com> References: <24346a000707150742t3fcea126u84b83a272c20a7c0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01b801c7c73b$668e05d0$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> Found on another list (and heavily cropped to preserve just the pithiest part)... > -----Original Message----- > From: wta-talk-bounces at transhumanism.org [mailto:wta-talk- > bounces at transhumanism.org] On Behalf Of Justice De Thezier > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:43 AM > To: wta-talk at transhumanism.org > Subject: Re: [wta-talk] Transhumanism and regulation > > I think Dale said it best: > > Democrats believe that people themselves should have a > say in the public decisions that affect them. To which I would point out, in an equally broad (and therefore useless in the specific, but perhaps applicable in the general) sense... Republicans (and to a greater extent Libertarians) believe that people themselves should have fewer public decisions affecting them in the first place. Joseph http://www.josephbloch.com From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Jul 16 00:24:36 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom In-Reply-To: <01b701c7c73b$03529490$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> References: <200707151527.l6FFRJuv087157@mail0.rawbw.com><0b3601c7c708$5cf71170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <40566.72.236.102.107.1184522349.squirrel@main.nc.us> <01b701c7c73b$03529490$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> Message-ID: <40619.72.236.103.5.1184545476.squirrel@main.nc.us> > I've actually had times where the trash collectors have refused to take soda > 12-pack boxes in the regular trash because "it's cardboard". This, despite > the fact that our town's recycling ordinance specifically states only > heavy-duty corrugated cardboard is to be recycled (which is, apparently, > different from some of the surrounding towns). Several rounds of phone calls > between me, the trash company, and the town proved fruitless, and I just > found my own solution. > > Put the *$#&! boxes in a garbage bag, and the trash collectors are none the > wiser. > I've heard stories of this here as well, but not where *I* live. One area of town has somewhat different recycling rules. They're pretty specific. If the trash collectors don't like the way stuff looks they refuse to take it. And the solution is exactly as you suggest: put the things in a garbage bag. How absurd. I guess eventually they'll be examining the inside contents. Regards, MB From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 00:56:53 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:56:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] There are Infinitely Many Numbers, But Each of them is Finite (reply to Bryan Bishop) In-Reply-To: <0b2101c7c706$4170ef40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <55ad6af70707150659j76132278ldc74c1bc450f2bc@mail.gmail.com> <0b2101c7c706$4170ef40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <55ad6af70707151756t1dcd8bd9w7326d66575cad891@mail.gmail.com> Hi Lee, glad you liked the bookmarks. When you said "on to the meat," I was hoping you had found the latest cultured meats section, but now that I look at the page I realize I did not include that subject in the latest synch. While I am mentioning it, here's my overview of that meaty subject: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=239081&cid=19583471 Mathematics, however, is equally meaty and interesting. I am partly embarrased that you were able to find some of the Cantor refutation links hidden in the deep depths of those categories. I had added them in a rush, and have slowly been purging them from my collection ever since. As I agree with your refutation of the refutation, I figure I better just add to the discusion by linking over to another page that still rings in my head: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=235713&cid=19227871 > In Applied Cryptography he outlines an interesting little computation to > demonstrate why this is. Suppose you had a computer that contained a > 256-bit register that was maximally efficient, meaning that toggling a > bit required exactly one quantum of energy. Since smaller units of > energy don't exist, you can't do better than that[*]. With that > assumption, you can calculate how much energy it would take to cycle > your 256-bit counter through all possible states. Schneier calculates > that if you could capture all of the energy from a typical supernova > and run your counter on that, you could count from 0 all the way up > through about 2^219. So you'd need about 130 billion supernovas to run > your counter through all of its 2^256 possible states. And just some janitorial work: > I perused the cryonics section's titles. It all looked pretty familiar (I've > been signed up for nearly 20 years, and many people here are signed > up with either Alcor or CI.) Is there something in particular about it > that you wanted to discuss? Not in particular. I was figuring that adding to the discussion re: probability and changing from one moment to the next had strong correlations to cryonics and ultracold vacuum physics because as you get colder, less and less actions take place. (And quantifying action is a tough, I hear.) And I have no idea if this makes for enough relevance to the previous subject line that you offered in the previous message. I'll make an assumption and shoot. - Bryan On 7/15/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > Welcome to the list! By the way, one really should change the subject > line whenever they're a significant change of subject. If you've perused > our archives at all, you'll see the pattern, and see how (just to help an > archive reviewer) sometimes the construction > > [Exi] (was ) > > is used, except the [Exi] part is automatically generated and need > not be added by you. > > When there is *no* connection, then make *no* "(was..." construction). > > I perused the cryonics section's titles. It all looked pretty familiar (I've > been signed up for nearly 20 years, and many people here are signed > up with either Alcor or CI.) Is there something in particular about it > that you wanted to discuss? > > Also, your list of essays and references looks like a non-trivial subset of > the entire web! A list, evidently (so far as I have had time to peruse it) > reflecting good taste! > > Ahem, on to the meat. One entry you list is > > http://www.marknielsen.net/Math/Counting/Diagonalization/Diagonalization_Disproof2.html > > which is a fun construction that produces a list of Very Rational numbers, > where I am defining Very Rational (Decimal Fractions) to be those that > terminate after a finite number of digits. The list you create begins > > 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.01, 0.11, 0.21, 0.31, 0.41, 0.51, 0.61, 0.71, 0.81, 0.91, 0.02, 0.12, 0.22, 0.32, > 0.42, 0.52, 0.62, 0.72, 0.82, 0.92, 0.03, 0.13, 0.23, 0.33, 0.43, 0.53, 0.63, 0.73, 0.83, 0.93, > > The problem is that all these *are* indeed rational, but that the *infinite* string > produced by the diagonalization is *not* rational. So of course it does not > appear on the list. > > The Step 5 of the ISSUES SECTION illustrates the error. It reads > > Step 5: "Also, the sequence 0.33333... and so on is in my set D. There is no single entry which matches 1/3, but if can accept that > a sequence 0.33333... is equal to 1/3, then after my list has been generated, 1/3 is in the list. --- I think." is mistaken. All > the numbers > > 0.3 > 0.33 > 0.333 > 0.3333 > 0.33333 > 0.333333 > ... > > is in the list, but the writer apparently does not understand that the *infinite* string .333333333... > does not anywhere appear on the list! > > Lee From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 01:21:02 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:21:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <55ad6af70707151821h1af2589ds7eb887422823502e@mail.gmail.com> Lee wrote: > Stathis writes > > > [Lee wrote] > > >> Categories exist and are real. And firmly maintaining that the old > >> oak tree (before it burned down) was *not* the rock in your garden > >> is as ontologically correct as it is to say that the rock in your garden > >> that changed only infinitesimally *is* the same rock as it was yesterday. > > > > Only because, by convention, we agree that a few atoms missing and a > > very large displacement in space and time are still consistent with > > the term "same rock". > > Are you saying that a rock sitting next to a tree have only conventional > differences? Yes indeed: quantum fields are all that there is, and we > do not anymore have the Newtonian vacuum of space in which objects > exist. But these *lumps* the the quantum fields are real lumps, and > very distinct. When you write "by convention, we agree" you surely > admit that any intelligent evolutionarily derived organism will detect > these same real categories that we do. Are you a nominalist? It is my understanding that the physical system present in the universe could be defined via categorics, but that because of the problems with measurement that we can never attain the complete picture of just what anything is. Otherwise we would have no need for the process of science, or as a website I recently passed by wrote, the "goal-resolution-recursion" process. An interesting line of thought to pursue is to apply the same thinking behind Pascal's wager without the religious toppings. Say that there are two possible states- either the universe has real categories backing it up, or it does not. Given no meaning to the universe, our assignment of meaning to things becomes (heh) meaningless. Given meaning, our nonassignment would be meaningful in the 'bad' way. You could call it an "idealized probability" of 25% but then C. S. Peirce might start rolling in his grave. > I'm reading a book "How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?" > which makes a strong case that QFT supports and affirms realism. > > Lee Ooh, do tell. How is the book so far? Recently I have been reading up on QFT after learning some of the basics of QED. Virtual particles as mediators of "fields" is really intriguing to me, since we get to come up with various explanations that (so far) work instead of resulting to mystical permeating fields. (Should I assign bonus points to he who can name the extropian son of a famous QED physicist ?) - Bryan From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Jul 16 02:43:31 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:43:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? Message-ID: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Is my epistemology really screwed up at a fundamental level? If so, it's got to be pretty subtle, and I would appreciate any help from anyone: professional philosopher or armchair amateur alike. An extremely thorough and carefully written book I'm reading encompasses the most modern and sophisticated physical theories impinges on epistemology. ("How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?", by Auyang.) First, let me lay out how I, as a loyal, reverent, and steadfast realist, understand the world, i.e., what my epistemology is. 1. There is a real world "out there" composed of all manner of real things. We have names for these things, e.g., electron, quark, photon, gluon, and so forth. We even have names for conglomerations of these things, e.g. "table", "star", "desk", "atom", and "galaxy". 2. These real things *affect* each other, even though they're really all comprised solely of quantum fields according to our best and awesome and outstanding theories. These fields not only pervade space, but space in the absence of these fields is not even conceivable (according to the doctrines of quantum field theory (QFT)). [All is plenum; Newton was wrong; nature indeed abhors a void; the doctrine of substantivalism is--or should be--dead.] 3. Loosely speaking, we erroneously call such real noumena, that is, the ding-an-sich, the things in themselves "objects". (We get away with this in everyday speech because it has no untoward consequences. In actuality, in QFT, an object is a theoretical construct: Kant was right.) 4. Objects as such---strictly speaking---do not reside in the mind. Nor do they reside in 3-space, any more than the number 6 resides in our minds or in space. Theories and ideas and other patterns exist really and Platonically whether or not people, or cameras, or quarks, or space, or time, or any other things happen to exist 5. The book engrosses upon the doctrine that the theory of objects encompasses several parts: (1) an abstract state space in which the (theoretical) states of an object can be said to exist under, for example, a probability distribution or in other ways (I'm very unclear here because I don't understand it well). This abstract state space is often in physical theories understood technically as a "manifold". Consult the mathematical definition of *manifold* if you are curious, though it's pretty technical. (2) a set of functions that map elements of the state space to n-dimensional coordinate domains, so that (ultimately) numbers may be attached in this fashion to states. These functions can be thought of as "properties", "observables", "characteristics", etc. Now I persist, despite all that, in believing that properties reside "in" objects, or that objects have properties. That a container may "have" a dozen eggs is a property of that container. In a horrifying but weak way, the container also has the property that I bought it at the store last week :-( (But maybe I'll heal from and recover from this spatial localizing of properties, only time will tell.) So the grand project---so far as I can see it---is to shoehorn this last paragraph into the theoretical structure of 5's (1) and (2), and I *will* do it. I solicit any criticism, of course, but especially of 1 - 4. If you are a realist, does anything I've said in 1 - 4 set off any warning bells? Thanks, Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 16 03:19:24 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:19:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? In-Reply-To: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070715221642.0219b6e8@satx.rr.com> At 07:43 PM 7/15/2007 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: >First, let me lay out how I, as a loyal, reverent, and steadfast >realist, understand the world Welcome, brother and comrade. > Theories and > ideas and other patterns exist really and Platonically > whether or not people, or cameras, or quarks, or space, > or time, or any other things happen to exist Aargh! Aargh! Avast, ye devil! >If you are a realist, does anything I've said in 1 - 4 set off any >warning bells? ding-ding-ding-an-sich! From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Jul 16 03:20:02 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:20:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Cryonics and Identity References: <55ad6af70707150659j76132278ldc74c1bc450f2bc@mail.gmail.com><0b2101c7c706$4170ef40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <55ad6af70707151756t1dcd8bd9w7326d66575cad891@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0b7401c7c758$358a3d10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan writes > [Lee wrote] > >> I perused the cryonics section's titles. It all looked pretty familiar (I've >> been signed up for nearly 20 years, and many people here are signed >> up with either Alcor or CI.) Is there something in particular about it >> that you wanted to discuss? > > Not in particular. I was figuring that adding to the discussion re: > probability and changing from one moment to the next had strong > correlations to cryonics and ultracold vacuum physics because as you > get colder, less and less actions take place. It sounds reasonable that fewer and fewer *actions* (and I am pretty sure you mean the technical physics term here) take place at lower temperatures. Has to do with the Boltzman distribution, I believe. > (And quantifying action is [tough], I hear.) I'll have to take your word for it! :-) Thanks. As for fewer and fewer quantum actions taking place at lower temperature, this may or may not be a balm to those who believe that they become different people upon every change of their quantum state. So far as I can tell, though, they just don't care much whether they change or remain the same--- after all, they're not the same people no matter what happens to them. (Now I would not have a problem---er, excuse me, I don't mean to sound antediluvian---I would not have an issue with their manner of dealing with the philosophical problem if they chose simply to stop using the term "person". I myself advocate exactly that course of action when a particular word starts to become troublesome or starts to cause confusion. What I don't like is to just deconstruct the concept entirely, continuting to use it but stripping it of all sensible or familiar meaning.) Lee P.S. Hate to keep complaining---but that's what you get for appearing to be quite the good fellow, I guess---but does your web-interface or email editor make it easy for you to delete irrelevant parts of posts when replying? People here generally dislike wading through all that. On some lists, posts grow arithmetically in length because people just hit reply and peck away. What is worse, sometimes people *here* quote every little passage of someone's post, and reply in equal length to it, and the size of the posts grows *geometrically*!! :-( From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jul 16 03:47:35 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:47:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? In-Reply-To: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <469AEA57.8040101@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > 1. There is a real world "out there" composed of all manner > of real things. We have names for these things, e.g., electron, > quark, photon, gluon, and so forth. We even have names for > conglomerations of these things, e.g. "table", "star", "desk", > "atom", and "galaxy". > > 2. These real things *affect* each other, even though they're > really all comprised solely of quantum fields according to > our best and awesome and outstanding theories. These fields > not only pervade space, but space in the absence of these > fields is not even conceivable (according to the doctrines > of quantum field theory (QFT)). [All is plenum; Newton > was wrong; nature indeed abhors a void; the doctrine of > substantivalism is--or should be--dead.] I don't want to get into an extended discussion, but... See Julian Barbour, "The End of Time". Only relative configurations are real; individual particles are not. Quantum amplitudes of particular relative configurations are related to each other, but they never change; the amplitude of a particular relative configuration is a fixed value. The relations define time, and cannot "change" because they are outside time. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Jul 16 03:55:30 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:55:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <55ad6af70707151821h1af2589ds7eb887422823502e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0b8301c7c75d$d0e4f3e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan writes > Lee wrote: > >> Are you saying that a rock sitting next to a [and the] tree >> have only conventional differences? Yes indeed: quantum >> fields are all that there is, and we do not anymore have the >> Newtonian vacuum of space in which objects exist. But >> these *lumps* the the quantum fields are real lumps, and >> very distinct. When you write "by convention, we agree" >> you surely admit that any intelligent evolutionarily derived >> organism will detect these same real categories that we do. > > It is my understanding that the physical system present in the > universe could be defined via categorics, Not quite sure what you mean by that, a sort of program perhaps? > but that because of the problems with measurement that we > can never attain the complete picture of just what anything is. One thing that this book I'm reading has convince me of: we can never *in* principle attain the complete picture of anything. Actually, Korzybski said that: the map is not the territory. > Otherwise we would have no need for the process of science, > or as a website I recently passed by wrote, the "goal-resolution > -recursion" process. On this list we have quite a few fans of PCR (pan-critical rationalism, which should have its own wikipedia page but does not---there's a bit under "critical rationalism", I think). > An interesting line of thought to pursue is to apply the same thinking > behind Pascal's wager without the religious toppings. Say that there > are two possible states- either the universe has real categories > backing it up, or it does not. Okay, and I say it does! :-) > Given no meaning to the universe, our > assignment of meaning to things becomes (heh) meaningless. In other words, you are saying that if in fact the universe is meaningless (and honestly, I have some trouble assigning much meaning pro or con to that statement), then our meaning-searches are meaningless. Yeah, I guess so. > [On the other hand] Given meaning, our nonassignment > would be meaningful in the 'bad' way. Yes, a marked failure on our part to find the real meaning that had been there all along. BTW, what has this to do with a realist's query about whether categories are "out there"? > You could call it an "idealized probability" of 25% but > then C. S. Peirce might start rolling in his grave. > (Should I assign bonus points to he who can name the extropian son of > a famous QED physicist ?) What is Carl Feynman? Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 04:06:33 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:06:33 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity In-Reply-To: <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <023301c7b4db$a4feada0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 16/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > The problem goes away if you acknowledge that there is no *logical* > > reason to consider that you are the same person from moment to moment, > > but rather that it is just a matter of evolutionary expedience. > > I think that you are resorting to deconstructing entirely what is meant > by "person". So can you tell me just what it is that you hope survives > from month to month? I hope that some entity entity exists next month which considers itself to be the continuation of me in much the same way as I consider myself to be the continuation of last month's version of me. If that happens, then I would say that I have survived as a person. If the entity next month is physically or even psychologically similar to me without fulfilling that criterion, then even though by some definition it might qualify as being the "same person", I will not consider that I have survived. -- Stathis Papaioannou From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 04:08:34 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:08:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: <0b8301c7c75d$d0e4f3e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <55ad6af70707151821h1af2589ds7eb887422823502e@mail.gmail.com> <0b8301c7c75d$d0e4f3e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <55ad6af70707152108x5fba731dv3c34dff58f768280@mail.gmail.com> On 7/15/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Bryan writes > > It is my understanding that the physical system present in the > > universe could be defined via categorics, > > Not quite sure what you mean by that, a sort of program perhaps? If we had the state of the universe at some moment, then we could classify groups of information. Admittedly this is risky since I am assuming we could access any such state or understand the format to parse it (perhaps this just adds to the strand of thought concerning action in the other thread on cryonics and ultracold quantum action). > > [On the other hand] Given meaning, our nonassignment > > would be meaningful in the 'bad' way. > > Yes, a marked failure on our part to find the real meaning > that had been there all along. BTW, what has this to do > with a realist's query about whether categories are "out > there"? I was thinking of a correlation between categories and meaningful data structures. - Bryan From dsunley at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 04:22:22 2007 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:22:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories (was Next Moment Around You...) In-Reply-To: <469A6856.30504@pobox.com> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <469A6856.30504@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 7/15/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > I've *always* lived in ancient times and I still find it a little > disturbing when someone completely lacks all sense of historical > perspective to such a degree that they do not even realize they are > living in the unthinkably distant past. > Is this a simulation argument reference? Darin Sunley dsunley at shaw.ca needgod.com From neptune at superlink.net Mon Jul 16 04:00:06 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:00:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <469AEA57.8040101@pobox.com> Message-ID: <09df01c7c75d$cc7edaa0$3e893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:47 PM Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com wrote: > I don't want to get into an extended discussion, but... > > See Julian Barbour, "The End of Time". Only relative configurations > are real; individual particles are not. Quantum amplitudes of > particular relative configurations are related to each other, but they > never change; the amplitude of a particular relative configuration is > a fixed value. The relations define time, and cannot "change" because > they are outside time. I'm sure happy to hear that after many centuries of debate -- going back to the Ancients -- that Barbour has finally and definitively settled the issue. :) No one here, I trust, would accuse him of being a sophomaniac... Seriously, though, I'll have to look into his book. Even so, the title reminds me of that "End of History" book and well as Rorty's blathering on about the end of philosophy. (Surely, Rorty was only aping those talking about the end of metaphysics.) Regards, Dan See my droolings on epistemology at: http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/Percept.html and http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/Dialogue.html and http://uweb1.superlink.net/~neptune/PCR.html From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jul 16 04:27:13 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:27:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? In-Reply-To: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 7/15/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Is my epistemology really screwed up at a fundamental level? > > If so, it's got to be pretty subtle, and I would appreciate any > help from anyone: professional philosopher or armchair > amateur alike. > 1. There is a real world "out there" composed of all manner > of real things. We have names for these things, e.g., electron, > quark, photon, gluon, and so forth. We even have names for > conglomerations of these things, e.g. "table", "star", "desk", > "atom", and "galaxy". This is an assumption, but an important one, and necessary at least within the extents of our present best model. In addition to assuming it is "real", we assume also that it is coherent and consistent in its interactions with any observer. Note also that coherent and consistent do not imply closed. > 4. Objects as such---strictly speaking---do not reside in the > mind. Nor do they reside in 3-space, any more than the > number 6 resides in our minds or in space. Theories and > ideas and other patterns exist really and Platonically > whether or not people, or cameras, or quarks, or space, > or time, or any other things happen to exist Argh! Lee, you're missing some of the following: Any observer system, while embedded in "reality", is fundamentally, ineluctably subjective. One can assume otherwise, but at the cost of reduced information entropy. [1] This means that any observation is always only defined in terms of the observer. Of course we humans are highly similar; individuals being only the smallest of twigs on a common branch of the evolutionary tree. "Any observation" includes observation of the observer by the observer. Misconception of this point is the source of perennial philosophical debates. >From the above we can infer pragmatic meaning of meaning, truth, etc. [2], all within a framework of maximizing information entropy, which is about as fundamental and universal a principle as we know. - Jef 1. Principle of maximum entropy, 2. Semiotics, From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 04:39:19 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:39:19 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 16/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > If you can discard this strong feeling of anticipation as a motivator, > > what's to stop you also discarding the desire to survive at all? > > Hmm, sorry if I implied somewhere that I'd remove anticipation > as a motivator if I could (e.g. after uploading). Heavens, no. > > It's just that in some very specially new and contrived---well, > new, special, and contrived in 2007, not in 2107---situations, > anticipation suggests an *incorrect* choice between A and B. > That is, you really are better of by choosing to have your > instance perish so that your duplicate gets rich. Or, as an > alternative, you are better off today if at 3pm last night a copy > was made, and at 4pm the original you was disintegrated, > and at 5pm your duplicate was substituted for the original > instance, and voila! you awake to discover you're rich. You assume that the similarity criterion for survival trumps the anticipation criterion. I could put it the other way around: the similarity criterion is only important to the extent that it allows us to anticipate the experiences of future selves. I am similar to my copies in the past and in parallel universes, but as I don't anticipate their experiences, I don't consider that I survive through them. This is just the way human minds have evolved to think. You have said that you would change this aspect of your mind if you get the chance, but then it would be just as easy to change the will to survive in any other sense. -- Stathis Papaioannou From sentience at pobox.com Mon Jul 16 04:58:54 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:58:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? In-Reply-To: <09df01c7c75d$cc7edaa0$3e893cd1@pavilion> References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <469AEA57.8040101@pobox.com> <09df01c7c75d$cc7edaa0$3e893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <469AFB0E.6000902@pobox.com> Technotranscendence wrote: > > I'm sure happy to hear that after many centuries of debate -- going back > to the Ancients -- that Barbour has finally and definitively settled the > issue. :) No one here, I trust, would accuse him of being a > sophomaniac... On the one hand, I know the theory (timeless physics) lacks definitive experimental proof, as yet. On the other hand, an irrevocable ratchet has ticked forward in my brain; I am no longer capable of conceiving what a "timeful" universe would be like. It is not so much that Barbour convinced me of his viewpoint but that he rendered me incapable of seeing the universe in any other way. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jul 16 05:02:05 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:02:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Post-Mortal Syndrome In-Reply-To: <3aff9e290707151613rfcb27em171c11e191d74fba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200707160502.l6G52FQ6027132@lily.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Chris Petersen Subject: Re: [ExI] Post-Mortal Syndrome On 7/15/07, spike wrote: >>I have been thinking about trying a combination of novel and adventure game, in which one guides the story line to some extent.??... spike >If you're thinking interactive fiction, I can recommend the Inform 7 engine. http://www.inform-fiction.org/I7/Inform%207.html >Do you imagine the software would need to be more specialized than this, such as adding an IF program to a 3D engine, as a kind of graphic/text adventure game creation hybrid? -Chris Thanks Chris, the Inform 7 would work fine. I just need to get with the program and learn the software. With the baby, it is unlikely to happen in the next few weeks. {8-] spike From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 06:43:01 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:43:01 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 16/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Only because, by convention, we agree that a few atoms missing and a > > very large displacement in space and time are still consistent with > > the term "same rock". > > Are you saying that a rock sitting next to a tree have only conventional > differences? Yes indeed: quantum fields are all that there is, and we > do not anymore have the Newtonian vacuum of space in which objects > exist. But these *lumps* the the quantum fields are real lumps, and > very distinct. When you write "by convention, we agree" you surely > admit that any intelligent evolutionarily derived organism will detect > these same real categories that we do. Are you a nominalist? I'm a nominalist, in that I don't believe that categories have a separate ontological status. However, this is incidental to the question of whether evolved intelligent beings would recognise the same categories as we do. It's easy enough to imagine a very intelligent, very precise and pedantic being which does not regard anything as being the same thing unless it is *exactly* the same thing, which no physical object can be from moment to moment. What would you actually say to an alien who thought you were crazy to assert that the rock was the same rock as yesterday? It is difficult to give a formal reason why a certain amount of vagueness should be allowed and another not, although there are practical reasons. -- Stathis Papaioannou From scerir at libero.it Mon Jul 16 07:30:35 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:30:35 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <001901c7c77b$33eea090$c8901f97@archimede> Lee: > 1. There is a real world "out there" > composed of all manner of real things. [...] > 2. These real things *affect* each other, > even though they're really all comprised solely > of quantum fields according to our best > and awesome and outstanding theories. [...] If you have some spare time, give a look to relational vs. realist interpretation. Mermin's ('Ithaca') interpretation. The following are *very good* papers ... http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801057 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013 It is well possible that physics is about correlations, and only correlations, as Mermin is saying. See also Rovelli's ('Relational') famous interpretation ... http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002 That (imo) is a bit different from saying that *only correlations* are physically real, and *values* of quantities being correlated are not. In fact Mermin has realized the huge problem of two observers measuring, at the same time, the same quantum system. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0107151 From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 09:28:36 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:28:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? In-Reply-To: <469AFB0E.6000902@pobox.com> References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <469AEA57.8040101@pobox.com> <09df01c7c75d$cc7edaa0$3e893cd1@pavilion> <469AFB0E.6000902@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0707160228v2b025689v66969b070950fc9b@mail.gmail.com> On 7/16/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > On the one hand, I know the theory (timeless physics) lacks definitive > experimental proof, as yet. > > On the other hand, an irrevocable ratchet has ticked forward in my > brain; I am no longer capable of conceiving what a "timeful" universe > would be like. > > It is not so much that Barbour convinced me of his viewpoint but that > he rendered me incapable of seeing the universe in any other way. I'm getting the same puzzled expression here that I did reading Barbour. This doesn't strike me as a matter of physics. Definition: Time is a dimension in which there is continuity, so that slice t+1 can be derived from slice t [1]. When we look at a universe (which can be our own, or a subset or variant thereof) with, say, two spatial dimensions, we must represent these by mapping them onto features of our own universe. Typically, to exploit special purpose hardware, we map them onto two of our own spatial dimensions. (The process becomes notoriously more difficult as the count climbs past three.) With a time dimension of the universe being studied, we have two major options: A) map it onto our own time dimension, or B) onto one of our spatial dimensions. Each is convenient for different purposes. Examples of A: speech, song, movies, animation of all kinds, imperative programming, wind tunnels, most types of simulation. Examples of B: writing of all kinds, sheet music, calendars, timelines (the literal ones you sometimes see in history books, horizontal line with significant dates marked to scale), comic strips, certain types of functional and logic programming, light cone diagrams, 1D cellular automata simulations of the type that lay out the successive states vertically down the screen. It seems self-evident to me that irrespective of the detailed laws of physics, there is no basis for claiming A or B is more true than the other, and all Barbour is doing is "discovering" B, writing an admittedly very evocative description of it, and then for some strange reason claiming A isn't true. [1] With various caveats regarding things like probability and approximation, I'm not a mathematician. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Mon Jul 16 10:07:35 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:07:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><469AEA57.8040101@pobox.com><09df01c7c75d$cc7edaa0$3e893cd1@pavilion> <469AFB0E.6000902@pobox.com> Message-ID: <004101c7c791$22c3ef80$86893cd1@pavilion> On Monday, July 16, 2007 12:58 AM Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com wrote: >> I'm sure happy to hear that after many centuries >> of debate -- going back to the Ancients -- that >> Barbour has finally and definitively settled the >> issue. :) No one here, I trust, would accuse him >> of being a sophomaniac... > > On the one hand, I know the theory (timeless physics) > lacks definitive experimental proof, as yet. > > On the other hand, an irrevocable ratchet has ticked > forward in my brain; I am no longer capable of > conceiving what a "timeful" universe would be like. > > It is not so much that Barbour convinced me of his > viewpoint but that he rendered me incapable of > seeing the universe in any other way. >From what little I understand of Barbour's ideas -- mainly gleaned from interviews and reviews -- it does not strictly seem like he's really positing a timeless universe, but more a different view of time -- and not necessarily, it seems to me, a new one. That Barbour has "rendered" you "incapable of seeing the universe in any other way" -- other than his way -- seems to me to be a problem you must overcome. :) You might supplement your reading of him with reading Sklar's classic _Space, Time, and Spacetime_, Earman's _World Enough and Space-Time_, and the Oxford reader _The Philosophy of Time_. (Incidentally, Lee mentioned substantivalism as if this were meant to be a void theory. Actually, it seems that substantivalism seems to really end up meaning not that there's a vacuum but that space has a structure or has properties independent of matter. In a sense, to me, that means space is something rather than nothing... But let's look at this another way. Even if substantivalism is talking about space regardless of what's in it, this need not mean that since "all is plenum" that substantivalism is wrong. Substantivalism would merely be talking about the structure of space as abstracted from the relations between objects in it. Sklar seems to make a good case in the above book for substantivalism being right in a way Newtonians and their relationists critics didn't grasp...) Regards, Dan From neptune at superlink.net Mon Jul 16 10:15:48 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:15:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom References: <0ab801c7c69b$d094ed40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><200707151538.l6FFc5Y3008975@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070715170351.0218d308@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <005e01c7c792$48900860$86893cd1@pavilion> On Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:11 PM Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com wrote: >> I am interested in what happens when the recycling >> promoters become aware that watering lawns actually >> saves water, or more precisely, recycles water. If we >> pull water out of wells and the river, irrigate lawns and fill >> swimming pools, the water evaporates, then goes into >> the atmosphere to fall again, thus being recycled using >> nature's tools: sunlight and plants. What do we tell the >> children, who have been indoctrinated that watering lawns >> hurts Mother Earth? > > You're being a bit naughty here, Spike. Extensive > monocropping is not a great idea anyway, and besides > the water has often been gathered at considerable cost-- > building dams, pipes, pumps, powering it all, venting heat > and pollutants, etc; yes, the water evaporates and falls, but > often not where it's needed; more importantly if the water's > coming from an ancient aquifer, you're also wasting your > birthright on a mess of boring foliage. Partly agreed. The real problem is that water collection and distribution is either a public utility or heavily regulated. If people experienced the true costs of water-usage -- e.g., in the US, farming in the Southwest is so intensive mostly because of massive federal subsidies for water reclamation -- they would likely use it more frugally... Or, if they were willing to pay the costs, this would spur on better methods of collection and distribution. (E.g., in the California, much of the water for farming is shipped around in open air canals -- meaning a huge amount of it evaporates. If the subsidy disappeared, maybe farming would shift to other locations or maybe people would start economizing on how to ship it around to avoid evaporation. (And evaporation loss here means more water must be sent than is received, putting more pressure on, e.g., rivers, lakes, and aquifers.)) In the end, as always, the solution is clear: dismantle all governments. :) Regards, Dan From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 11:12:40 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:12:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0707160412p1d95b9afv6dd5d0664b5f3854@mail.gmail.com> On 7/16/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I'm a nominalist, in that I don't believe that categories have a > separate ontological status. However, this is incidental to the > question of whether evolved intelligent beings would recognise the > same categories as we do. It's easy enough to imagine a very > intelligent, very precise and pedantic being which does not regard > anything as being the same thing unless it is *exactly* the same > thing, which no physical object can be from moment to moment. What > would you actually say to an alien who thought you were crazy to > assert that the rock was the same rock as yesterday? Say? But the very act of saying anything, presupposes that the listener can understand that the words are part of the same utterance, spoken by the same person. It's easy to imagine - indeed, to implement in a computer program - a very precise and pedantic being which does not regard anything as being the same thing unless it is *exactly* the same thing, but such a being could not be intelligent; intelligence is the ability to solve (certain kinds of) problems, which such a being could not do. It is difficult > to give a formal reason why a certain amount of vagueness should be > allowed and another not, although there are practical reasons. > Successful problem-solving by programs of tractable length and run time dictates said programs contain the concept of sameness (whether or not it be labelled by the English word "same"); granted we can't formally calculate from this the exact amount of vagueness that should be allowed, but in principle it does provide a formal justification. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Jul 16 11:32:14 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:32:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <023301c7b4db$a4feada0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Lee wrote: > >> I think that you are resorting to deconstructing entirely what is meant >> by "person". So can you tell me just what it is that you hope survives >> from month to month? > > I hope that some entity entity exists next month which considers > itself to be the continuation of me in much the same way as I consider > myself to be the continuation of last month's version of me. > > If that happens, then I would say that I have survived as a person. I will try to criticize that based upon a literal reading. Please forgive me if theapproach really isn't warranted here. It sounds as though that is a *sufficient* condition for your survival. One weakness clearly is that the opinion of the resulting creature is paramount. For example, whether you survive sounds as though it depends on whether or not the creature changes its mind about the nature of identity. Let A = you today, A' = you tomorrow, etc., and a copy of you is made on day three so that there exist A, A', A'', A'''..., B'', B'''... Under normal circumstances, and by your definition above, they all consider themselves to be a continuation of you. But if A''''''' for instance attends some heavy duty philosophy courses some where, or loses a key argument on some email list, then you no longer survive in the A-development. Seems suspect to me. Because: later on, A'''''''''''''''''''' may change his mind again and so now again you have to survived. Or he may begin changing his mind every few hours. Surely it's simpler to go with the common view, and suppose that all the A's and all the B's are "you" in the sense that you survive if any of them do, no matter what strange ideas they may begin to entertain (provided they don't go crazy, etc., i.e., that they don't cease in an objective fashion to resemble you). Lee > If the entity next month is physically or even psychologically > similar to me without fulfilling that criterion, then even though > by some definition it might qualify as being the "same person", > I will not consider that I have survived. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Jul 16 11:41:08 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:41:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com><02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><55ad6af70707151821h1af2589ds7eb887422823502e@mail.gmail.com><0b8301c7c75d$d0e4f3e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <55ad6af70707152108x5fba731dv3c34dff58f768280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0ba901c7c79e$48efbe20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan writes > Lee wrote: >> Bryan writes >> > It is my understanding that the physical system present in the >> > universe could be defined via categorics, >> >> Not quite sure what you mean by that, a sort of program perhaps? > > If we had the state of the universe at some moment, then we could > classify groups of information. It so happens that, taken literally, the author (of this book I keep promising to describe further) would object strenuously to the construction "if we *had* the state of the universe". One can only have certain impressions at best, and even there I don't think I'm being careful enough. Sorry if it emerges that I'm being overly picky. But "the map is not the territory" Korzybski would affirm, is more than just a truism; it's a habit of thought. He went so far as to believe that its total internalization was necessary to sanity! :-) > Admittedly this is risky since I am > assuming we could access any such state or understand the format to > parse it (perhaps this just adds to the strand of thought concerning > action in the other thread on cryonics and ultracold quantum action). I'm tentatively sticking to the idea of the "things-in-themselves" "out there" fallling into natural categories. Stars---and I do not mean our perceptions of them but the things in themselves--- are quite different nexi of the quantum fields that permeate all of space from nearby regions where the fields seem to pretty much cancel each other out. Lee >> > [On the other hand] Given meaning, our nonassignment >> > would be meaningful in the 'bad' way. >> >> Yes, a marked failure on our part to find the real meaning >> that had been there all along. BTW, what has this to do >> with a realist's query about whether categories are "out >> there"? > > I was thinking of a correlation between categories and meaningful data > structures. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Jul 16 11:47:41 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:47:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0bb201c7c79f$b0b26fc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > Lee wrote: > >> 4. Objects as such---strictly speaking---do not reside in the >> mind. Nor do they reside in 3-space, any more than the >> number 6 resides in our minds or in space. Theories and >> ideas and other patterns exist really and Platonically >> whether or not people, or cameras, or quarks, or space, >> or time, or any other things happen to exist > > [Please consider the following:] > > Any observer system, while embedded in "reality", is fundamentally, > ineluctably subjective. One can assume otherwise, but at the cost of > reduced information entropy. [1] 1. Do cameras or photographic plates count as observers? 2. How complex does a robot have to become before it is an observer? 3. Does it make sense to speak of the universe before there were observers? Thanks for the criticism, Sincerely, Lee > This means that any observation is always only defined in terms of the > observer. Of course we humans are highly similar; individuals being > only the smallest of twigs on a common branch of the evolutionary > tree. > > "Any observation" includes observation of the observer by the > observer. Misconception of this point is the source of perennial > philosophical debates. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Jul 16 12:02:59 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 05:02:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Lee wrote: > >> That is, you really are better off by choosing to have your >> instance perish so that your duplicate gets rich. Or, as an >> alternative, you are better off today if at 3pm last night a copy >> was made, and at 4pm the original you was disintegrated, >> and at 5pm your duplicate was substituted for the original >> instance, and voila! you awake to discover you're rich. > > You assume that the similarity criterion for survival trumps the > anticipation criterion. Guilty as charged! :-) Begging the question as usual, though, I'm afraid. :-) (Gee, I sure hope that certain persons won't put that in the dossier they keep on me to pull out for ammunition later.) > I could put it the other way around: the similarity criterion is only > important to the extent that it allows us to anticipate the experiences > of future selves. I am similar to my copies in the past and in parallel > universes, but as I don't anticipate their experiences, I don't consider > that I survive through them. I claim that I can come up with (and have done so before, either here or elsewhere) two entirely identical physical outcomes wherein your feelings are not clear and unambiguous. Under one description of the proceedings (memory erasure, teleportation, copying, etc.) we end up with a physical system completely identical to another (obtained through memory additions, teleportation, etc.), and yet you might strongly anticipate being one of them and not being the other. If so, would this count against your system? I.e., do you believe that anticipation is a firm enough ground upon which to base a concept of survival? > This is just the way human minds have evolved to think. You have > said that you would change this aspect of your mind if you get the > chance, but then it would be just as easy to change the will to > survive in any other sense. I meant to say that I would only try to continue the progress that I've already begun: namely to identify with and anticipate the experiences of all duplicates past and future whose physical states closely resemble mine now. Or, failing that, to regard anticipation as an unreliable guide, and to upon occasion ignore its built-in urgings when they conflict with the patternist notion of identity. It might be easier to discard the notion of surviveability, or, as you suggest, to eliminate the desire to survive, but I don't want to do that! No, no no! :-) Reasonable or not, "being alive is better than being dead, all other things equal" is something pretty hard- wired in me, at least for now. Lee From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 14:40:29 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:40:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? In-Reply-To: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <55ad6af70707160740w42c28b53v343e44e658c12a7e@mail.gmail.com> On 7/15/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Is my epistemology really screwed up at a fundamental level? I sent off your email to a buddy of mine who gets to play with particle physicists daily, and so some interesting discussion developed. I would welcome anybody's comments, esp. the last part concerning quantum amplitudes applied to macroscopic systems. Note the messages below are time descending, so starting at the bottom may eliminate unnecessary confusion. On 7/16/07, Bryan Bishop wrote: > > Regarding number 3, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that an > > object is a theoretical construct. Perhaps this is being nitpicky, or > > alternatively it's a mistake in my understanding of an object (I think the > > latter is more likely). But if we're willing to accept that quantum fields > > are real in any sense, then I think we are required to also believe in > > things like electrons (or whatever other name you might want to call them), > > which are the quanta of their respective fields. A similar, but slightly > > weaker case could be made even for conglomerate objects like bayrons and > > mesons. > > When you look at some old stone in the garden, you see that stone, and > you have some thoughts and expectations, explanations, or call them > theories if you must- the stone will stay roughly the same, maybe some > layers of atoms and other particles will be stripped off, the photons > of the sun will heat it during the day, etc. > > However, as particle theorists peer into these structures, they find > that they so far have no smallest object to base their observations > on. Any object is a theoretical construct- our painted picture of what > we expect the complex of spacetime-mass to be doing. Like our stone in > the garden outside the house. > > Shine some photons on an object, and you will know (as your training > tells you) that some of the photons are not going back towards your > eyes. This effectively means that the mass that you are examining is > constantly interacting and changing- if we had very fine resolution of > photons we would see in very quick moments that parts of the object > are blind to us while others are more visible than ever before. > > Now ... > > >> 4. Objects as such---strictly speaking---do not reside in the > >> mind. Nor do they reside in 3-space, any more than the > >> number 6 resides in our minds or in space. > > You have to agree with that much. Our stone that we perceive when we > walk into the garden is mentally represented in our brain with firing > neurons that keep some persistent image in the visual cortexes. So, > our envisioned stone exists in the mind, but whatever system is > causing the interaction with the environment (through photons, the > wind, thermal motion- again photons, etc.) that we observe, that too > exists- not in our envisioned 3-space, which is our construct to play > with the universe, but rather whatever it is that is really "out > there". > > As for theories and ideas platonically existing: if by that he means > that two children can imagine some data structure somewhat similar, > then I would agree. The possibilities of the brain allow for similar > functionality, though we can never know if what I imagine matches > exactly what you imagine. Right? > > Re: objects and properties. Objects/systems have contexts, their > influence upon the world etc. You call it spacetime history (maybe > spacetimemass history, or add energy in there somehow), and I'd call > it the actions they take that modifies the rest of the universe. > > Quantum amplitudes- can they be applied to macroscopic systems somehow > and show that there is a quantum amplitude for my standing up at this > moment and running around with my arms in the air making long-tailed > macaque calls? > > - Bryan > > On 7/16/07, Kurtis Nishimura wrote: > > I suppose I should read this in the mindset of a realist, right? Okay... > > well even in that case, I have a few comments. > > > > Regarding number 3, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that an > > object is a theoretical construct. Perhaps this is being nitpicky, or > > alternatively it's a mistake in my understanding of an object (I think the > > latter is more likely). But if we're willing to accept that quantum fields > > are real in any sense, then I think we are required to also believe in > > things like electrons (or whatever other name you might want to call them), > > which are the quanta of their respective fields. A similar, but slightly > > weaker case could be made even for conglomerate objects like bayrons and > > mesons. > > > > I find number 4 a little bit baffling. Again, maybe this is my own > > misunderstanding. But how can you, on the one hand in 1 declare that the > > universe is made of real things, in 2 declare that space in the absence of > > fields has no meaning, and then on the other hand in 4 declare that objects > > do not exist in 3 space? Is the distinction that when he says objects he > > really means "chair" and not "*a* chair," or "*that* chair?" From reading > > 5, I don't think this is the case. > > > > I actually don't have much to say about number 5... > > > > But about that last bit. I think the resolution to his problem of objects > > having properties can be resolved by simply looking at the history of an > > object. This history may not be especially meaningful at a field theory > > level, as the locations and times of events may not be well defined. But > > certainly on a macroscopic scale, in special relativity the entire > > space-time history of an object can be followed by examining its world line. > > For example, while the container "has" a dozen eggs the eggs and the > > container will follow the same world line. The property of being bought at > > the store last week indicates that the container's world line is tied to the > > purchaser's (and the seller's, and the money's that changed hands, etc...) > > in a very distinct way. > > > > Again, I stress this is part of the structure of macroscopic objects (i.e., > > ones that display particle-like behavior rather than wave behavior). This > > does not bother us in a field theory sense because in field theory the > > properties of each object are quite limited: mass, angular momentum, charge, > > etc. Further, if you have two objects with identical properties they are > > completely indistiguishable in every sense. One electron cannot be > > distinguished from another electron. (For example, these two processes > > cannot be distinguished from one another: > > http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~nunes/ria1_files/slide0175_image330.jpg > > ) > > > > The region in between field theory and the macroscopic world is more of a > > problem... so I avoid that for now and just admit that I need to learn more > > about the decoherence process before making any sort of claim on what > > happens in the middle ground. > > > > So... do you think that resolves anything? Or have I just managed to > > restate already known facts while mucking up his original arguments? > > > > -Kurtis - Bryan From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 15:25:47 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:25:47 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity In-Reply-To: <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 16/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I hope that some entity entity exists next month which considers > > itself to be the continuation of me in much the same way as I consider > > myself to be the continuation of last month's version of me. > > > > If that happens, then I would say that I have survived as a person. > > I will try to criticize that based upon a literal reading. Please forgive > me if theapproach really isn't warranted here. > > It sounds as though that is a *sufficient* condition for your survival. > One weakness clearly is that the opinion of the resulting creature > is paramount. For example, whether you survive sounds as though > it depends on whether or not the creature changes its mind about > the nature of identity. > > Let A = you today, A' = you tomorrow, etc., and a copy of you > is made on day three so that there exist A, A', A'', A'''..., B'', B'''... > Under normal circumstances, and by your definition above, they > all consider themselves to be a continuation of you. But if A''''''' > for instance attends some heavy duty philosophy courses some > where, or loses a key argument on some email list, then you no > longer survive in the A-development. Seems suspect to me. > > Because: later on, A'''''''''''''''''''' may change his mind again and > so now again you have to survived. Or he may begin changing > his mind every few hours. I didn't mean it as literally as that. If I realised during the past month that in some objective sense I was not really the same person that would have no bearing whatsoever on my feeling that I was the same person, which is based on deeply ingrained psychological criteria such as memory and a sense of continuity. If my memory and my sense of continuity both went, then even if it could be shown that in some objective sense that I was the same person, I may as well have died. When it comes to personhood, subjectivity is everything. > Surely it's simpler to go with the common view, and suppose > that all the A's and all the B's are "you" in the sense that you > survive if any of them do, no matter what strange ideas they > may begin to entertain (provided they don't go crazy, etc., > i.e., that they don't cease in an objective fashion to resemble > you). They have to resemble me in a certain special way. My past self from a month ago resembles me about as much as my future self in a month's time will resemble, and yet I consider that I will survive in my future self, not in my past self, because the latter does not contain my present experiences as a memory subset. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 15:36:27 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 01:36:27 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0707160412p1d95b9afv6dd5d0664b5f3854@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707160412p1d95b9afv6dd5d0664b5f3854@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 16/07/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > > What > > would you actually say to an alien who thought you were crazy to > > assert that the rock was the same rock as yesterday? > > Say? But the very act of saying anything, presupposes that the listener can > understand that the words are part of the same utterance, spoken by the same > person. It's easy to imagine - indeed, to implement in a computer program - > a very precise and pedantic being which does not regard anything as being > the same thing unless it is *exactly* the same thing, but such a being could > not be intelligent; intelligence is the ability to solve (certain kinds of) > problems, which such a being could not do. Such a being would merely have to be precise about the changes from moment to moment, and accept that for practical purposes near enough is good enough. For example, it wouldn't get very far in engineering if it insisted on a tolerance of 10 decimal places when 3 decimal places would do. -- Stathis Papaioannou From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jul 16 15:42:29 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:42:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? In-Reply-To: <0bb201c7c79f$b0b26fc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb201c7c79f$b0b26fc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes > > > Lee wrote: > > > >> 4. Objects as such---strictly speaking---do not reside in the > >> mind. Nor do they reside in 3-space, any more than the > >> number 6 resides in our minds or in space. Theories and > >> ideas and other patterns exist really and Platonically > >> whether or not people, or cameras, or quarks, or space, > >> or time, or any other things happen to exist > > > > [Please consider the following:] > > > > Any observer system, while embedded in "reality", is fundamentally, > > ineluctably subjective. One can assume otherwise, but at the cost of > > reduced information entropy. [1] > > 1. Do cameras or photographic plates count as observers? > 2. How complex does a robot have to become before it is an observer? > 3. Does it make sense to speak of the universe before there were observers? Lee, you began this thread by asking "Is my epistemology really screwed up at a fundamental level?", but you then proceeded to pose problems that appear to be entirely ontological[1], rather than epistemological[2]. It's as if you and I are speaking different languages; might you be conflating or juxtaposing the two? Your response (Q1-3) highlights my point. Yours are ontological questions, about incidentally epistemological observers. You're asking what exists, without consideration of the more fundamental question of what can be known. Indeed you deny the more fundamental question in your many posts, repeatedly falling back on "it's obvious", or "it's commonsense", and referring to identity without consideration of context, essential to any instance of meaning. Even the most precise of identities, within mathematics, are sensible only within context -- "oh...you meant Euclidean geometry?"importance of context To your specific questions: "1. Do cameras or photographic plates count as observers?" Only to the extent that they are seen to express an internal model of their perceptions of the world, which is to say "no", or "hardly." "2. How complex does a robot have to become before it is an observer?" To be seen as an observer is not a matter of degree of complexity. Insects and even lower life forms are legitimate observers of their umwelt, their perceived environment, despite their relatively limited expression and nearly negligible self-awareness. We are all "robots." "3. Does it make sense to speak of the universe before there were observers?" Of course. Speech about any object is speech about a remote object, regardless of whether the object is remote in space or time. All observation is indirect. > Thanks for the criticism, > > Sincerely, > Lee Thanks for the sarcasm. ;-) Lee, I offered no criticism, which would have necessarily entailed points about something you produced. I offered only pointers to areas which might nurture certain gaps in your thinking. For you to take that as criticism must mean that you think I'm criticizing you as a person, which is entirely absent from my intentions. - Jef 1. Ontology, 2. Epistemology, From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 16:13:08 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:13:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707160412p1d95b9afv6dd5d0664b5f3854@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0707160913l119597b6o3dfafb3c152ba2e1@mail.gmail.com> On 7/16/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Such a being would merely have to be precise about the changes from > moment to moment, and accept that for practical purposes near enough > is good enough. For example, it wouldn't get very far in engineering > if it insisted on a tolerance of 10 decimal places when 3 decimal > places would do. > Oh well that's fine, then I just give him a quick English lesson: "The word 'same' means 'difference is small enough to be ignored in the current context'." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Jul 16 16:22:34 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:22:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom In-Reply-To: <005e01c7c792$48900860$86893cd1@pavilion> References: <0ab801c7c69b$d094ed40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <200707151538.l6FFc5Y3008975@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070715170351.0218d308@satx.rr.com> <005e01c7c792$48900860$86893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 7/16/07, Technotranscendence wrote: > (E.g., in the > California, much of the water for farming is shipped around in open air > canals -- meaning a huge amount of it evaporates. I've wondered for a long time how much of that water is lost to evaporation. Can someone here provide a practical quantitative assessment or a pointer to same? Dan, always good to have your participation on the extropy list! - Jef From hibbert at mydruthers.com Mon Jul 16 17:26:11 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:26:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: <0b8301c7c75d$d0e4f3e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <55ad6af70707151821h1af2589ds7eb887422823502e@mail.gmail.com> <0b8301c7c75d$d0e4f3e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <469BAA33.2000209@mydruthers.com> > On this list we have quite a few fans of PCR (pan-critical > rationalism, which should have its own wikipedia page but > does not---there's a bit under "critical rationalism", I think). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancritical_rationalism has a short paragraph on the subject. (Originally written by Mike Linksvayer in 2005.) There are pointers to that page from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panrationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism_%28disambiguation%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Warren_Bartley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority And two lists of philosophies. 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 chris at pancrit.org Blog: http://pancrit.org From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Jul 16 21:25:12 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:25:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >> But these *lumps* the the quantum fields are real lumps, and >> very distinct. When you write "by convention, we agree" you surely >> admit that any intelligent evolutionarily derived organism will detect >> these same real categories that we do. Are you a nominalist? > > I'm a nominalist, in that I don't believe that categories have a > separate ontological status. However, this is incidental to the > question of whether evolved intelligent beings would recognise the > same categories as we do. By "incidental" you mean not relevant? If so, I do differ (naturally) as you would expect. > It's easy enough to imagine a very > intelligent, very precise and pedantic being which does not regard > anything as being the same thing unless it is *exactly* the same > thing, which no physical object can be from moment to moment. It's not easy for *me* to imagine how such a creature could have evolved. What we think of as things in the world---rivers, rocks, trees, edible food, etc.---any being must also be able to distinguish. Even bacteria lump all the nearly infinitely different chemical possibilities into just a few categories (perhaps tens of thousands for all I know), although for many, yes, they do exhibit a continuous range of reaction (so it's possible that they could have just two top categories: move toward and move away from, i.e., "good" and "bad"). Some insects respond in a very fine-tuned way to light stimuli while others respond only to blunt categories. The point is that to get by in the world you have to incorporate some of the actual structure of the world. And the world really does come in lumps. > What would you actually say to an alien who thought you were crazy to > assert that the rock was the same rock as yesterday? I would first make sure that there was not a communication problem. Then I would ask him why the two rocks were not the same. He might say that one was a "today-rock" and one was a "yesterday-rock", but that would probably indicate nothing more than a communication or language difficulty. He might say that extremely fine changes had occurred to the rock that were important to his people or whatever. Still, I would refuse to believe him if he said that the lake today has more in common with the rock yesterday than the rock today has in common with the rock of yesterday. (of course, it's possible that he's been artificially created by scientists to mouth absurdities, just like many programs we too have written). Maybe he's just high. :-) Earth people say many strange things when their brains are functioning incorrectly. > It is difficult to give a formal reason why a certain amount > of vagueness should be allowed and another not, although > there are practical reasons. Wow, a formal reason? In some circumstances it will be appropriate for some creatures to tolerate some vagueness about some things. :-) That's about as far as I'm brave enough to go! (But maybe I'm just being lazy.) Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Jul 16 23:12:17 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:12:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200707162329.l6GNT3IW029721@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright > Subject: Re: [ExI] Regulation vs. Freedom > > On 7/16/07, Technotranscendence wrote: > > > (E.g., in the > > California, much of the water for farming is shipped around in open air > > canals -- meaning a huge amount of it evaporates. > > I've wondered for a long time how much of that water is lost to > evaporation. Can someone here provide a practical quantitative > assessment or a pointer to same? > > Dan, always good to have your participation on the extropy list! > > - Jef Jef, the phrase "lost to evaporation" is exactly what it was I was trying to point out in an earlier post. Water that is evaporated is recycled, in the sense that it is carried high from whence it came, so that it can fall again as snow on the mountains and irrigate the land anew, as wells as produce power on its way to the sea. Granted, as Damien the Texan points out, some of that water falls where it is not wanted or cannot be used because it is too low in elevation. But I would argue that this too is merely a water control issue. Texas has been recently pounded by excess rain. Pahdnuh. But this is a problem that can be solved. So in a sense, some of the water in an open canal is gained to evaporation. What if we had closed pipe everywhere replacing open canals? Would not the water that once evaporated now be taken out of the cycle? Would not the arid west become still dryer? We could arrange open canals and vast fields upon which to intentionally evaporate water in the dry west, while simultaneously diverting some of the water in the Mississippi into closed pipe to reduce the high humidity there. We could even out the humidity and rainfall to some extent, thus constructing habitat for humanity. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 16 23:46:56 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:46:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <200707162329.l6GNT3IW029721@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <200707162329.l6GNT3IW029721@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716184138.02237098@satx.rr.com> At 04:12 PM 7/16/2007 -0700, Spike wrote: >Granted, as Damien the Texan points out, some of that water falls where it >is not wanted or cannot be used because it is too low in elevation. But the aspect most worrying to me is the reckless draining of ancient aquifers that can't be refilled (not easily or inexpensively, anyway). Not unlike sucking out oil that won't be replenished so you can drive for half an hour to pick up a loaf of white bread. True, we can hope the kids develop some cool magic physics that will fix it up some day. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 01:33:22 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:33:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible?" References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <55ad6af70707151821h1af2589ds7eb887422823502e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c0501c7c813$29b43c00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan wrote > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 6:21 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] The Reality of Categories > > Lee wrote: > >> I'm reading a book "How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?" >> which makes a strong case that QFT supports and affirms realism. > > Ooh, do tell. How is the book so far? I really, really love it. With uncanny word choice and an incredible vocabulary the author lays bare her interpretation of Kantian philosophy and how Quantum Field Theory confirms his view as expressed in "The Critique of Pure Reason". The author has taught quantum field theory for many years at MIT, I understand. The book does, however, attempt to provide an introduction to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory in order to undergird the presentation, and unless you've had a course in QM (which I have not) then the ten or fifteen percent of the book that depends on physics is not very accessible, at least not without a lot of study and a good textbook on QM sitting next to you. Me, I could never make heads or tells of Kant before reading this book. I had no idea that Kant was trying to explain the a priori existence of a mental framework that we *all* use all the time: that things exist (whatever we are talking about), and that the things have properties, and that relationships exist between things, properties and relationships. It's more than I have time to write about here. This mental framework is called (by Kant?) "*The* Categorical Framework", and according to him every epistemological and ontological discussion should start with it. (At least this is my amateurish philosophical take on it.) I've written up some very disorganized notes for myself at http://www.leecorbin.com/HowIsQFTpossible.html and for folks in a book group I belong to who're trying to read the book. I, at least, have to read every sentence very carefully and make a huge effort to internalize what the author is trying to say. But I really can't imagine that it could have been said any simpler: When you're trying to talk about how we *think* itself, there are so many unconscious assumptions that have to be addressed (and in many cases dismantled) that there's no way of getting around the fact that any good explanation is going to be a tough slog. The bottom line is that the author makes a very strong case that QFT fully illustrates not only what Kant was trying to say, but that a fully consistent philosophical analysis of QFT proves that Kant was right. > Recently I have been reading up on QFT after learning > some of the basics of QED. Virtual particles as mediators > of "fields" is really intriguing to me, since we get to come > up with various explanations that (so far) work instead > of resulting to mystical permeating fields. Well, the author might retort that the "permeating fields" really are the fundamental reality, and that fiber bundles and local symmetry groups force one away from a Newtonian view of particles-in-a-void (substantivalism). (Or, as Dan---Technotranscendence---mentioned, substantivalism in part encompasses the notion that space is independent of matter. Anyway, it doesn't at all fit well with QFT evidently.) As I mention on that page, the peculiar title of the book comes from the kind of argument that Kant used. It is called the *transcendental argument*, and "has the following general form: X (e.g., we have experiences). For X to be possible, the conditions p must be satisfied. Therefore p. "How is X possible?" initiates the inquiry and is called a transcendental question. The topic X is typically some fundamental empirical knowledge in Kantian philosophy. Hence the conditions p must be internally manifested, for outside knowledge we know nothing and can say nothing..." Thus the title is, for the author, a "transcendental question initiating inquiry". I don't know why she had to leave this explanation of the title to an endnote in the back of the book. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 01:40:45 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:40:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <030a01c7b692$3fbfe6d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >> Surely it's simpler to go with the common view, and suppose >> that all the A's and all the B's are "you" in the sense that you >> survive if any of them do, no matter what strange ideas they >> may begin to entertain (provided they don't go crazy, etc., >> i.e., that they don't cease in an objective fashion to resemble >> you). > > They have to resemble me in a certain special way. My past self from a > month ago resembles me about as much as my future self in a month's > time will resemble, and yet I consider that I will survive in my > future self, not in my past self, because the latter does not contain > my present experiences as a memory subset. Sorry to sound so arrogant and that "i've been there and done that" all the time, but for a while many years ago I did entertain the definition that I was "anything that was a superset of my memories". But how is it again that when you're under midazolam you don't consider yourself dead meat? After all, tomorrow there will exist a Stathis that is *not* a memory superset of who you are now. Also, we forget things all the time. (Especially as you get older, alas!) But it doesn't bother most of us too much. Would you part with all of this and last week's memories you have for $10M? I would. Thanks for your patience, Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 02:08:35 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:08:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb201c7c79f$b0b26fc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0c0c01c7c817$65a23240$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > Lee, you began this thread by asking "Is my epistemology really > screwed up at a fundamental level?", but you then proceeded to pose > problems that appear to be entirely ontological[1], rather than > epistemological[2]. It's as if you and I are speaking different > languages; might you be conflating or juxtaposing the two? Oh, yes, and thanks for bringing it up. Over the years I've found it harder and harder to discuss ontology without bringing epistemology into it. A number of times I'd say "ontology" to people and almost get blank stares: they'd bounce right back and include my points in what they were calling "epistemology". Yeah. Whatever. Besides, epistemology is these days still controversial, but scientifically educated people seem all to be in agreement over ontology. > Your response (Q1-3) highlights my point. Yours are ontological > questions, about incidentally epistemological observers. You're > asking what exists, without consideration of the more fundamental > question of what can be known. :-) Well, some of us think that the inquiry must begin at the ontological level: we (realists?) believe ourselves to begin with "the given", but *not* in an axiomatic way, but rather in a way more reminiscent of PCR. You should love it: it's "what works". We *know* what we're talking about when we talk about carburetors (well, at least some of us!), and when we're talking about mountains, streams, trees, and animals. So we *tentatively* (as good PCR types) first look at the basic ontology of the world. Objects seem to be fundamental. Only *later*, it seems, do we begin the upon the amazing journey of wondering just who we are to know about things in the world. > Indeed you deny the more fundamental > question in your many posts, repeatedly falling back on "it's > obvious", or "it's commonsense", and referring to identity without > consideration of context, essential to any instance of meaning. Oh, I'm a bad, bad boy. You do so love to disparage my style and my modes of presentation and even how I think. Frankly, I'm more than a little tired of it. > Even the most precise of identities, within mathematics, > are sensible only within context -- "oh...you meant Euclidean > geometry?"importance of context You use that crap a lot. What are you getting at? I did look it up. I don't know why you spruce up your presentation with it. > To your specific questions: Ah, yes. > "1. Do cameras or photographic plates count as observers?" > Only to the extent that they are seen to express an internal model of > their perceptions of the world, which is to say "no", or "hardly." Okay. > "2. How complex does a robot have to become before it is an observer?" > To be seen as an observer is not a matter of degree of complexity. > Insects and even lower life forms are legitimate observers of their > umwelt, their perceived environment, despite their relatively limited > expression and nearly negligible self-awareness. We are all "robots." It's not a matter of complexity (or capability, I assume)? So why isn't a photographic plate as good an observer as a heat sensor, and why isn't a heat sensor as good as an amoeba, and so on? > "3. Does it make sense to speak of the universe before there > were observers?" > Of course. Speech about any object is speech about a remote object, > regardless of whether the object is remote in space or time. All > observation is indirect. > >> Thanks for the criticism, >> >> Sincerely, >> Lee > > Thanks for the sarcasm. ;-) > > Lee, I offered no criticism, which would have necessarily entailed > points about something you produced. Jef, "criticism" is *complimentary* in Pan Critical Rationalism. It's to be appreciated! I was NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST BEING sarcastic. I meant every word right there. I meant the "thank you" part, and I meant the "criticism". Criticism is good because it helps us strengthen our beliefs. Good beliefs---i.e. beliefs we can have confidence in---are those that survive criticism. But surely you have read some PCR. > I offered only pointers to areas which might nurture certain > gaps in your thinking. Your kindness is overflowing. [1] Has it ever occurred to you that there might be just as many gaps in your thinking as there are in others' thinking? > For you to take that as criticism must mean that you think > I'm criticizing you as a person, which is entirely absent > from my intentions. I understand. It's clear when you're on my case on a personal level, and it's clear when you're not. No problem here. Lee [1] Now *that's* sarcasm! From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 02:24:36 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:24:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <55ad6af70707160740w42c28b53v343e44e658c12a7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c1d01c7c81a$33d9b8c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Hi Bryan, Thanks for forwarding my questions to and discussing them with your friend. I think his and your points quite telling, and helpful. I admit to trying to focus as hard as I can on this book to the exclusion of some other quite relevant material (e.g. scerir's pointers). So I can't do more right now than carefully read what you've written. Also, thanks for reading my questions in the most positive light you could, given their awkward and apparently self-contradictory claims concerning what an "object" is. (I'm trying out the idea---while reading the book---that a "thing" is a Kantian primitive, or a ding-an-sich, or some damn stuff "out there", while an *object* may be should be considered some kind of construct. Just trying these ideas out. Trying to make sense of the book. :-) Lee (P.S. I take the liberty of quoting your entire message below because I don't have time to edit it right now and think quite highly of the whole thing.) P.P.S. The modesty of your friend >> > So... do you think that resolves anything? Or have I just managed to >> > restate already known facts while mucking up his original arguments? is both charming and polite! Sounds like a great guy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Bishop" To: "Lee Corbin" ; "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? > On 7/15/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >> Is my epistemology really screwed up at a fundamental level? > > > I sent off your email to a buddy of mine who gets to play with > particle physicists daily, and so some interesting discussion > developed. I would welcome anybody's comments, esp. the last part > concerning quantum amplitudes applied to macroscopic systems. > > Note the messages below are time descending, so starting at the bottom > may eliminate unnecessary confusion. > > On 7/16/07, Bryan Bishop wrote: >> > Regarding number 3, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that an >> > object is a theoretical construct. Perhaps this is being nitpicky, or >> > alternatively it's a mistake in my understanding of an object (I think the >> > latter is more likely). But if we're willing to accept that quantum fields >> > are real in any sense, then I think we are required to also believe in >> > things like electrons (or whatever other name you might want to call them), >> > which are the quanta of their respective fields. A similar, but slightly >> > weaker case could be made even for conglomerate objects like bayrons and >> > mesons. >> >> When you look at some old stone in the garden, you see that stone, and >> you have some thoughts and expectations, explanations, or call them >> theories if you must- the stone will stay roughly the same, maybe some >> layers of atoms and other particles will be stripped off, the photons >> of the sun will heat it during the day, etc. >> >> However, as particle theorists peer into these structures, they find >> that they so far have no smallest object to base their observations >> on. Any object is a theoretical construct- our painted picture of what >> we expect the complex of spacetime-mass to be doing. Like our stone in >> the garden outside the house. >> >> Shine some photons on an object, and you will know (as your training >> tells you) that some of the photons are not going back towards your >> eyes. This effectively means that the mass that you are examining is >> constantly interacting and changing- if we had very fine resolution of >> photons we would see in very quick moments that parts of the object >> are blind to us while others are more visible than ever before. >> >> Now ... >> >> >> 4. Objects as such---strictly speaking---do not reside in the >> >> mind. Nor do they reside in 3-space, any more than the >> >> number 6 resides in our minds or in space. >> >> You have to agree with that much. Our stone that we perceive when we >> walk into the garden is mentally represented in our brain with firing >> neurons that keep some persistent image in the visual cortexes. So, >> our envisioned stone exists in the mind, but whatever system is >> causing the interaction with the environment (through photons, the >> wind, thermal motion- again photons, etc.) that we observe, that too >> exists- not in our envisioned 3-space, which is our construct to play >> with the universe, but rather whatever it is that is really "out >> there". >> >> As for theories and ideas platonically existing: if by that he means >> that two children can imagine some data structure somewhat similar, >> then I would agree. The possibilities of the brain allow for similar >> functionality, though we can never know if what I imagine matches >> exactly what you imagine. Right? >> >> Re: objects and properties. Objects/systems have contexts, their >> influence upon the world etc. You call it spacetime history (maybe >> spacetimemass history, or add energy in there somehow), and I'd call >> it the actions they take that modifies the rest of the universe. >> >> Quantum amplitudes- can they be applied to macroscopic systems somehow >> and show that there is a quantum amplitude for my standing up at this >> moment and running around with my arms in the air making long-tailed >> macaque calls? >> >> - Bryan >> >> On 7/16/07, Kurtis Nishimura wrote: >> > I suppose I should read this in the mindset of a realist, right? Okay... >> > well even in that case, I have a few comments. >> > >> > Regarding number 3, I'm not so sure I agree with the statement that an >> > object is a theoretical construct. Perhaps this is being nitpicky, or >> > alternatively it's a mistake in my understanding of an object (I think the >> > latter is more likely). But if we're willing to accept that quantum fields >> > are real in any sense, then I think we are required to also believe in >> > things like electrons (or whatever other name you might want to call them), >> > which are the quanta of their respective fields. A similar, but slightly >> > weaker case could be made even for conglomerate objects like bayrons and >> > mesons. >> > >> > I find number 4 a little bit baffling. Again, maybe this is my own >> > misunderstanding. But how can you, on the one hand in 1 declare that the >> > universe is made of real things, in 2 declare that space in the absence of >> > fields has no meaning, and then on the other hand in 4 declare that objects >> > do not exist in 3 space? Is the distinction that when he says objects he >> > really means "chair" and not "*a* chair," or "*that* chair?" From reading >> > 5, I don't think this is the case. >> > >> > I actually don't have much to say about number 5... >> > >> > But about that last bit. I think the resolution to his problem of objects >> > having properties can be resolved by simply looking at the history of an >> > object. This history may not be especially meaningful at a field theory >> > level, as the locations and times of events may not be well defined. But >> > certainly on a macroscopic scale, in special relativity the entire >> > space-time history of an object can be followed by examining its world line. >> > For example, while the container "has" a dozen eggs the eggs and the >> > container will follow the same world line. The property of being bought at >> > the store last week indicates that the container's world line is tied to the >> > purchaser's (and the seller's, and the money's that changed hands, etc...) >> > in a very distinct way. >> > >> > Again, I stress this is part of the structure of macroscopic objects (i.e., >> > ones that display particle-like behavior rather than wave behavior). This >> > does not bother us in a field theory sense because in field theory the >> > properties of each object are quite limited: mass, angular momentum, charge, >> > etc. Further, if you have two objects with identical properties they are >> > completely indistiguishable in every sense. One electron cannot be >> > distinguished from another electron. (For example, these two processes >> > cannot be distinguished from one another: >> > http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~nunes/ria1_files/slide0175_image330.jpg >> > ) >> > >> > The region in between field theory and the macroscopic world is more of a >> > problem... so I avoid that for now and just admit that I need to learn more >> > about the decoherence process before making any sort of claim on what >> > happens in the middle ground. >> > >> > So... do you think that resolves anything? Or have I just managed to >> > restate already known facts while mucking up his original arguments? >> > >> > -Kurtis > > - Bryan > From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 02:48:47 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:48:47 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 16/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I could put it the other way around: the similarity criterion is only > > important to the extent that it allows us to anticipate the experiences > > of future selves. I am similar to my copies in the past and in parallel > > universes, but as I don't anticipate their experiences, I don't consider > > that I survive through them. > > I claim that I can come up with (and have done so before, either > here or elsewhere) two entirely identical physical outcomes > wherein your feelings are not clear and unambiguous. Under one > description of the proceedings (memory erasure, teleportation, > copying, etc.) we end up with a physical system completely > identical to another (obtained through memory additions, > teleportation, etc.), and yet you might strongly anticipate being > one of them and not being the other. > > If so, would this count against your system? I.e., do you believe > that anticipation is a firm enough ground upon which to base a > concept of survival? Memory erasure, for one, presents problems for the anticipation criterion for survival. To be consistent, I would have to say that memory erasure is equivalent to death, and that if I'm not worried about memory erasure then I shouldn't be worried about death. Equivalently, I could say that if I'm not worried about dying as long as my copy in the next room lives, then I shouldn't be worried about dying at all, or at worst I shouldn't be worried about dying as long as there is someone to continue my projects after I'm gone. > It might be easier to discard the notion of surviveability, or, as you > suggest, to eliminate the desire to survive, but I don't want to do > that! No, no no! :-) Reasonable or not, "being alive is better > than being dead, all other things equal" is something pretty hard- > wired in me, at least for now. But it depends on what counts as survival. Anticipating the next moment is what evolution has programmed us with to consider survival. If you start messing with that programming, you could as easily redefine survival to mean anything else, such as survival of a copy despite your death or survival of the human race despite your death and the death of all your copies. -- Stathis Papaioannou From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 17 02:50:29 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:50:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <200707162329.l6GNT3IW029721@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <200707162329.l6GNT3IW029721@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716214803.021b1ea8@satx.rr.com> At 04:12 PM 7/16/2007 -0700, Spike wrote: >Texas has been >recently pounded by excess rain. Pahdnuh. But this is a problem that can >be solved. Here's more than you could possibly want to know about one plan based in part on naturally replenishable aquifers: http://www.swtexaslive.com/july2006/eason sample: From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jul 17 02:50:34 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:50:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716184138.02237098@satx.rr.com> References: <200707162329.l6GNT3IW029721@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070716184138.02237098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <469C2E7A.8080003@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > > But the aspect most worrying to me is the reckless draining of > ancient aquifers that can't be refilled (not easily or inexpensively, > anyway). Not unlike sucking out oil that won't be replenished so you > can drive for half an hour to pick up a loaf of white bread. True, we > can hope the kids develop some cool magic *points wand* EXPECTO PETROLEUM! -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 02:54:07 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:54:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Silicon (br)/otherhood Message-ID: <55ad6af70707161954o5c7b4cf2q78233cfaff1b9be2@mail.gmail.com> http://www.net.info.nl/myster/school/brtherh.htm Something I found while searching for Zindell's silicon goddess. Thoughts? - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 04:00:01 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:00:01 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 17/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > What would you actually say to an alien who thought you were crazy to > > assert that the rock was the same rock as yesterday? > > I would first make sure that there was not a communication > problem. Then I would ask him why the two rocks were > not the same. He might say that one was a "today-rock" > and one was a "yesterday-rock", but that would probably > indicate nothing more than a communication or language > difficulty. He might say that extremely fine changes had > occurred to the rock that were important to his people > or whatever. Still, I would refuse to believe him if he said > that the lake today has more in common with the rock > yesterday than the rock today has in common with the > rock of yesterday. (of course, it's possible that he's been > artificially created by scientists to mouth absurdities, just > like many programs we too have written). The point is, it is a different rock from day to day, but for certain practical purposes (which a naturally evolved being would know about) it is reasonable to ignore the differences and call it the same rock. In the context of personal identity, it is not just the degree of similarity that matters. I am roughly as similar to the person I was yesterday as I will be to the person who identifies as being me tomorrow, and yet I don't anticipate surviving in my yesterday incarnation, not even if he exists in a timeless block universe. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 04:31:22 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:31:22 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity In-Reply-To: <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 17/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Sorry to sound so arrogant and that "i've been there and done that" > all the time, but for a while many years ago I did entertain the > definition that I was "anything that was a superset of my memories". > > But how is it again that when you're under midazolam you don't > consider yourself dead meat? After all, tomorrow there will exist > a Stathis that is *not* a memory superset of who you are now. > Also, we forget things all the time. (Especially as you get older, > alas!) But it doesn't bother most of us too much. > > Would you part with all of this and last week's memories you > have for $10M? I would. I probably would, but when I think about the implications of this, I think that *death is not such a big deal*. If I can agree to die so that my copy of some time ago lives, I may as well agree to die so that other people who bear no resemblance to me live, since in neither case can I anticipate my "successor's" experiences. Fear of death and the definition of survival cannot be derived a priori: they have been programmed into us by evolution. If you start adjusting the programming why stop at defining survival as survival of a copy whose experiences you cannot anticipate, rather than some other entity? There is an evolutionary argument - if copying becomes commonplace, those who regard copies as selves will thrive - but this is neither a logical argument nor a prescriptive argument. Evolution would also favour those who have thousands of genetically identical offspring, but that doesn't mean we should pursue that end if the means became available. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 17 04:31:33 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:31:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716214803.021b1ea8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200707170441.l6H4foIk009772@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] water control > > At 04:12 PM 7/16/2007 -0700, Spike wrote: > > > >Texas has been > >recently pounded by excess rain. Pahdnuh. But this is a problem that > >can be solved. > > Here's more than you could possibly want to know > about one plan based in part on naturally replenishable aquifers: > > http://www.swtexaslive.com/july2006/eason Damien, you are surely more studied up on this than I, but I have a hard time taking too seriously the notion than an underground lake could be depleted permanently. If water is drawn out of the ground thru a pipe, my intuition is that water can be dropped back down there, thru the same pipe if necessary, to be drawn up again when it is needed. It seems to me that aquifers could be used as capacitors for water, especially useful in times of flooding such as the Texas events described by the local "news" agencies. Your childhood home Australia is a dry continent. The Australians should have developed some really bitchin water control technologies. We have much to learn from them, ja? spike From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jul 17 07:02:11 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:02:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716184138.02237098@satx.rr.com> References: <200707162329.l6GNT3IW029721@lily.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070716184138.02237098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070717070211.GW20274@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:46:56PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > But the aspect most worrying to me is the reckless draining of > ancient aquifers that can't be refilled (not easily or inexpensively, > anyway). Not unlike sucking out oil that won't be replenished so you > can drive for half an hour to pick up a loaf of white bread. True, we > can hope the kids develop some cool magic physics that will fix it up some day. The ecology threads on extropy never cease to crack me up. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 10:20:09 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:20:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Memory erasure, for one, presents problems for the anticipation > criterion for survival. To be consistent, I would have to say that > memory erasure is equivalent to death, and that if I'm not worried > about memory erasure then I shouldn't be worried about death. Yes, thanks for seeing that and saving me the trouble with coming up with a scenario. (Though if anyone else is doubtful, I'll be happy to provide one.) In your medical practice, have you yourself been under the influence of midazolam? (Sorry if we've had this discussion before---I really don't keep as straight as I should who has said what months ago.) Now the *act* of taking midazolam, of course, is worry-free, since future versions of you will be memory-supersets. But an hour later, the creature "you" possibly may believe that he's going to die. Is that the case? > Equivalently, I could say that if I'm not worried about dying as long > as my copy in the next room lives, then I shouldn't be worried about > dying at all, or at worst I shouldn't be worried about dying as long > as there is someone to continue my projects after I'm gone. So let's say that you have terminal cancer (heaven forbid), and are going to die in three months, and it so happens that a copy of you was made four months ago, and frozen, and can be cured. If I understand correctly, you do not believe that you will survive in this scenario. Therefore, do you care whether your duplicate is defrosted and continues your projects, or a brand new (and very energetic and thorough) person is found in the unemployment lines who will capably continue your projects? (And let's leave out, for convenience, any familial attachments and so on that are in principle irrelevant.) > Anticipating the next moment is what evolution has programmed > us with to consider survival. If you start messing with that > programming, you could as easily redefine survival to mean > anything else, such as survival of a copy despite your death > or survival of the human race despite your death and the > death of all your copies. Yes. In fact any "editing" of my instincts and unconscious processes---not to say conscious processes and capabilities ---needs to be done with the utmost caution. In my daydreams of one day being resurrected by advanced nanotechnology in the year 2061, I fully hope to have a vastly intelligent robot (real or uploaded) at my side who can guide me in my decisions. "Uh, you might not want to mess with that right now, Lee, while your IQ is still less than 200 and your hippocampus has not been adequately augmented. Recall what your friend Stathis was talking about back in 2007? He was quite right." Lee From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jul 17 10:30:58 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:30:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <200707170441.l6H4foIk009772@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716214803.021b1ea8@satx.rr.com> <200707170441.l6H4foIk009772@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070717103058.GB20274@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 09:31:33PM -0700, spike wrote: > > Damien, you are surely more studied up on this than I, but I have a hard > time taking too seriously the notion than an underground lake could be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_water Given that the water table has dropped in parts of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas (by up to 30 m), our use of water today is largely unsustainable. What's worse, we contaminate the reservoirs. > depleted permanently. If water is drawn out of the ground thru a pipe, my > intuition is that water can be dropped back down there, thru the same pipe Not through the same pipe. And it's a lot of water. Where will it come from? > if necessary, to be drawn up again when it is needed. It seems to me that > aquifers could be used as capacitors for water, especially useful in times > of flooding such as the Texas events described by the local "news" agencies. > > Your childhood home Australia is a dry continent. The Australians should > have developed some really bitchin water control technologies. We have much You should read the Diamon's Collapse part on Australia. Quite interesting. > to learn from them, ja? http://www.environment.gov.au/land/pressures/salinity/index.html etc. The U.S. is much, much better of. Mostly. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 10:31:22 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:31:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >> Still, I would refuse to believe [the hypothetical alien[ if he >> said that the lake today has more in common with the rock >> yesterday than the rock today has in common with the >> rock of yesterday. (of course, it's possible that he's been >> artificially created by scientists to mouth absurdities, just >> like many programs we too have written). > > The point is, it is a different rock from day to day, Well, that is the whole question! Should we use the term "the same rock" and the concept "the same" to refer to two such highly similar entities? Clearly we should in daily discourse, otherwise the funniest movie title ever conceived, "Dude, Where is My Car?" would lack a point. I suppose that we realists (as opposed to you nominalists?) would affirm that since rocks under normal circumstances undergo exceedingly little change from day to day, there is a natural, objective category that's relevant here. > but for certain practical purposes (which a naturally evolved > being would know about) it is reasonable to ignore the > differences and call it the same rock. Oh yes, just so. > In the context of personal identity, it is not just the degree of > similarity that matters. I am roughly as similar to the person I was > yesterday as I will be to the person who identifies as being me > tomorrow, and yet I don't anticipate surviving in my yesterday > incarnation, not even if he exists in a timeless block universe. So technically speaking, you don't expect to survive this coming evening? I'm confused; I thought that if any memory superset of you survived, then you survive. Oh, hmm, I guess you mean "present incarnation": you don't expect the present incarnation to survive the coming night. Lee From neptune at superlink.net Tue Jul 17 11:31:07 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:31:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Organic tomatoes healthier? Message-ID: <002f01c7c865$f8dc7cc0$6a893cd1@pavilion> http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=5575 Interesting proposed mechanism. Regards, Dan From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 12:00:49 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:00:49 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 17/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > > Memory erasure, for one, presents problems for the anticipation > > criterion for survival. To be consistent, I would have to say that > > memory erasure is equivalent to death, and that if I'm not worried > > about memory erasure then I shouldn't be worried about death. > > Yes, thanks for seeing that and saving me the trouble with coming > up with a scenario. (Though if anyone else is doubtful, I'll be happy > to provide one.) > > In your medical practice, have you yourself been under the influence > of midazolam? (Sorry if we've had this discussion before---I really > don't keep as straight as I should who has said what months ago.) No, but I've probably given it to hundreds of patients in anaesthetics (IV), paediatrics (squirted into the mouth of the little struggling tyke with a syringe) and psychiatry (IM). BTW, midazolam is nothing special as a drug, being just a short-acting benzodiazepine. Diazepam (Valium) has a similar, if slightly weaker, amnesic effect if given IV, and a wide variety of other sedative drugs, like alcohol, also have the same effect in sufficiently high dosages. > Now the *act* of taking midazolam, of course, is worry-free, > since future versions of you will be memory-supersets. But an > hour later, the creature "you" possibly may believe that he's going > to die. Is that the case? One complicating factor with midazolam is that it is a very powerful anxiolytic at the dosages that produce amnesia, so that patients are basically too zonked out to care much about what is happening to them anyway. That consideration aside, one reason it is not as frightening as death is that, as you say, at the point where you about to take the drug, death is not guaranteed in the way it is guaranteed if you are about to have a lethal injection. But having taken the drug, it should be just like waiting for your execution. If it isn't disturbing, then to be consistent waiting for your execution shouldn't be disturbing either. > > Equivalently, I could say that if I'm not worried about dying as long > > as my copy in the next room lives, then I shouldn't be worried about > > dying at all, or at worst I shouldn't be worried about dying as long > > as there is someone to continue my projects after I'm gone. > > So let's say that you have terminal cancer (heaven forbid), and > are going to die in three months, and it so happens that a copy > of you was made four months ago, and frozen, and can be cured. > If I understand correctly, you do not believe that you will survive > in this scenario. Therefore, do you care whether your duplicate > is defrosted and continues your projects, or a brand new (and > very energetic and thorough) person is found in the unemployment > lines who will capably continue your projects? (And let's leave > out, for convenience, any familial attachments and so on that are > in principle irrelevant.) I don't see why I should prefer that the duplicate be defrosted. This is going on my standard issue feelings about what it means to survive. If I can overcome these feelings, which I admit are not based on any logic or empirical fact, then I could as easily decide that the survival of my duplicate is no more consolation than the survival of a similarly capable different person. What this whole topic means to me is that death is not what I thought it was 20 years ago. If I can convince myself that I die every moment, or die through memory loss, or survive through a copy (even an old copy), or any of the other complicated variations we discuss, then death ceases to be absolute or straightforward, and becomes less worrying even if nothing in the world changes. I hope that doesn't sound like bioluddite thanatolatry, because I still wish that some version of me will see the far future. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 12:10:57 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:10:57 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 17/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > In the context of personal identity, it is not just the degree of > > similarity that matters. I am roughly as similar to the person I was > > yesterday as I will be to the person who identifies as being me > > tomorrow, and yet I don't anticipate surviving in my yesterday > > incarnation, not even if he exists in a timeless block universe. > > So technically speaking, you don't expect to survive this coming > evening? I'm confused; I thought that if any memory superset > of you survived, then you survive. Oh, hmm, I guess you mean > "present incarnation": you don't expect the present incarnation > to survive the coming night. In a block universe, there are my previous selves and my future selves, all doing their thing simultaneously (as it were). My past selves are about as similar to me as my future selves at an equivalent temporal displacement, but my future selves constitute a memory superset of my present self while my past selves do not. Therefore, I don't care if my past selves are wiped out by a giant trans-block-universe-thingy whereas I do care if my future selves suffer such a fate. -- Stathis Papaioannou From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 13:07:44 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:07:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity In-Reply-To: <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240707170607x6eb48c3dr562aa05d6f54c105@mail.gmail.com> On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Would you part with all of this and last week's memories you > have for $10M? I would. > > I'm suprised you would say that. If $5M a week is the going rate for erasing LeeCorbin's past - what's the rate for suppressing LeeCorbin's future? (purely a hypothetical, of course) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 14:12:28 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:12:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories In-Reply-To: <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240707170712p323b86fbq54f566e64f141888@mail.gmail.com> On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > What would you actually say to an alien who thought you were crazy to > > assert that the rock was the same rock as yesterday? > > I would first make sure that there was not a communication > problem. Then I would ask him why the two rocks were > not the same. He might say that one was a "today-rock" > and one was a "yesterday-rock", but that would probably > indicate nothing more than a communication or language > difficulty. > I wonder if the communication problem could be resolved. Sure, we can agree on language usage, but ultimately the message originates from a specific perspective and must reach a destination perspective different from that origin. In a human-to-human context, there is enough similarity in past experience that the point of view on an abstract point is negligible. Given the parallax between human and alien perspectives, there may be increasing difficulty constructing any language-encapsulated thought that could be properly received and understood. Perhaps over the course of enough context-sharing where human-thought becomes more alien and alien-thought becomes more human, the gap can be narrowed. I also considered the rock example as a point of view problem like this: The rock is the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey. We are each in the same plane relative to the monolith, at equal distance and right angles. You see a black surface that is 1 unit by 4 units. I see a black surface 1 unit by 9 units. We are in agreement about the 1 unit measure (I assume our concept of "black surface" also agrees) Our description of the other observable dimension is inherently a matter of our positions relative to the object. A third (contrived) observer in another plane may only see the 4x9 face. We may have some language or communication medium with which to exchange our concept of this object, but without a frame of reference we won't be able to communicate properly. I wonder if the aliens from this example can directly observe a temporal dimension of the rock as we would examine spatial dimensions. If that were true, then they would be more like the third observer than any in "our" plane. I always wondered if the monolith's dimension 1x4x9 continued as squares of the dimension, such that the fourth dimension of the monolith would be 16, etc. Also, considering the vanishing point notion of perspective, could a sufficiently wide object be detectable along it's width even if the depth were too small (less than a Planck length) [reminds me of Flatland (1)] (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 14:25:54 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:25:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240707170725ic5dabfau382ac4db7fe9d5fd@mail.gmail.com> On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > It might be easier to discard the notion of surviveability, or, as you > suggest, to eliminate the desire to survive, but I don't want to do > that! No, no no! :-) Reasonable or not, "being alive is better > than being dead, all other things equal" is something pretty hard- > wired in me, at least for now. > so hardwired that you're redefining "alive" versus "dead" to make that hardwiring easier to manage. I think much of the difficulty of drawing people into these discussions is convincing them to release their own ancient hardwiring about identity. If you were to talk about the issues facing the first AI that wakes up and convincingly explains itself to be conscious of its own identity - I don't think you'd have the human identity bias to relinquish. Once you lead down that road, it's much easier to introduce mind uploading and arrive at the same conclusions with (possibly) fewer hangups. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 14:29:45 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:29:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Price of Life (was Re: Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity) References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170607x6eb48c3dr562aa05d6f54c105@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1daf01c7c87f$1a4bde50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Would you part with all of this and last week's > > memories you have for $10M? I would. > > I'm suprised you would say that. > > If $5M a week is the going rate for erasing LeeCorbin's past > - what's the rate for suppressing LeeCorbin's future? What!!? > (purely a hypothetical, of course) Oh. Well, in that case, since you're not really putting a contract out on me, I don't need to think about it. The answer: eight hundred trillion dollars (which effectively gives my beneficiaries complete control of Earth). Lee From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 16:50:38 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:50:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Communication with aliens (was Re: The Reality of Categories) Message-ID: <55ad6af70707170950q4f76e786r8dfaf93575f1f249@mail.gmail.com> On 7/17/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > What would you actually say to an alien who thought you were crazy to > > > assert that the rock was the same rock as yesterday? > > > > I would first make sure that there was not a communication > > problem. Then I would ask him why the two rocks were > > not the same. He might say that one was a "today-rock" > > and one was a "yesterday-rock", but that would probably > > indicate nothing more than a communication or language > > difficulty. > > > > I wonder if the communication problem could be resolved. Sure, we can agree > on language usage, but ultimately the message originates from a specific > perspective and must reach a destination perspective different from that > origin. In a human-to-human context, there is enough similarity in past > experience that the point of view on an abstract point is negligible. Given > the parallax between human and alien perspectives, there may be increasing > difficulty constructing any language-encapsulated thought that could be > properly received and understood. Perhaps over the course of enough > context-sharing where human-thought becomes more alien and alien-thought > becomes more human, the gap can be narrowed. Context-sharing indeed. Context is never itself, though, (context has context has ...), and so even now we see communication troubles with those systems (read: humans) with much, much smaller gap-values. Crossing bigger gap-values is an interesting challenge. :) I am reminded of Marvin Minsky's "Communication with alien intelligence," (1985), http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/AlienIntelligence.html - but he makes many assumptions starting off. Also relevant is the Cosmic OS project, but I have yet to double check the axioms, http://cosmicos.sourceforge.net/ - but we cannot really test this; we don't even know if the medium is useful As for complex aliens that are more likely than what the pop 'scifi' authors would have us believe, there are some imaginations at play over here: http://www.orionsarm.com/xenos/index.html For example: http://www.orionsarm.com/worlds/Whisper.html - how would you hack this grass so that you could communicate? - Bryan From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jul 17 16:58:08 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:58:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? In-Reply-To: <0c0c01c7c817$65a23240$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb201c7c79f$b0b26fc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0c01c7c817$65a23240$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes > > > Lee, you began this thread by asking "Is my epistemology really > > screwed up at a fundamental level?", but you then proceeded to pose > > problems that appear to be entirely ontological[1], rather than > > epistemological[2]. It's as if you and I are speaking different > > languages; might you be conflating or juxtaposing the two? > > Oh, yes, and thanks for bringing it up. Meaning "Yes, I was mindful or pre-accepting of this, and glad you appreciate the issue"? > Over the years I've found > it harder and harder to discuss ontology without bringing > epistemology into it. A number of times I'd say "ontology" > to people and almost get blank stares: they'd bounce right > back and include my points in what they were calling > "epistemology". Meaning you are already acutely aware of this distinction, so no need to bring it up? > Yeah. Whatever. [Hmm.] > Besides, epistemology > is these days still controversial, but scientifically educated > people seem all to be in agreement over ontology. So it seems that you believe the distinction is not only vague, but unproductive. I think your belief supports your chronic blind-spot. > > Your response (Q1-3) highlights my point. Yours are ontological > > questions, about incidentally epistemological observers. You're > > asking what exists, without consideration of the more fundamental > > question of what can be known. > > :-) Well, some of us think that the inquiry must begin at the > ontological level: we (realists?) believe ourselves to begin with > "the given", but *not* in an axiomatic way, but rather in a way > more reminiscent of PCR. You should love it: it's "what > works". I do appreciate pan-critical rationalism, it's essentially the scientific method applied to beliefs. I suspect, however, that Max's exposition of it would be somewhat different done now, in contrast with what he wrote 13 years ago. > We *know* what we're talking about when we > talk about carburetors (well, at least some of us!), and > when we're talking about mountains, streams, trees, and > animals. This appears to be another of your straw-men. I have no confusion about carburetors, mountains, streams, trees and animals, and have never stated that anyone is or should be so confused. My point is that any observer's understanding is **fundamentally and essentially probabilistic, not Aristotelian**. It works just fine; you get truth, without Truth. > So we *tentatively* (as good PCR types) first > look at the basic ontology of the world. Objects seem to > be fundamental. Only *later*, it seems, do we begin the > upon the amazing journey of wondering just who we are > to know about things in the world. That's fine. And via PCR you will eventually come to the point where your model of reality can benefit from a more coherent understanding of the nature of the observer. > > Indeed you deny the more fundamental > > question in your many posts, repeatedly falling back on "it's > > obvious", or "it's commonsense", and referring to identity without > > consideration of context, essential to any instance of meaning. > > Oh, I'm a bad, bad boy. You do so love to disparage my > style and my modes of presentation and even how I think. > Frankly, I'm more than a little tired of it. I don't think I've concerned myself with your style or presentation; I actually find those aspects to be somewhat entertaining and endearing. Can you provide an example? With regard to your thinking, however, I do disparage your tendency towards the use of straw-men, and your tendency to reframe a person's points to facilitate your own argument. I sometimes feel a bit frustrated with our discussions, but I find that your online persona continues to present an interesting puzzle. > > Even the most precise of identities, within mathematics, > > are sensible only within context -- "oh...you meant Euclidean > > geometry?"importance of context > > You use that crap a lot. What are you getting at? > I did look it up. I don't know why you spruce up your > presentation with it. It's simply a concise (and nostalgically humorous) indicator of terms or concepts which, while significant, appear to be transparent and therefore unobserved by you. > > To your specific questions: > > Ah, yes. > > > "1. Do cameras or photographic plates count as observers?" > > Only to the extent that they are seen to express an internal model of > > their perceptions of the world, which is to say "no", or "hardly." > > Okay. > > > "2. How complex does a robot have to become before it is an observer?" > > To be seen as an observer is not a matter of degree of complexity. > > Insects and even lower life forms are legitimate observers of their > > umwelt, their perceived environment, despite their relatively limited > > expression and nearly negligible self-awareness. We are all "robots." > > It's not a matter of complexity (or capability, I assume)? So why > isn't a photographic plate as good an observer as a heat sensor, > and why isn't a heat sensor as good as an amoeba, and so on? Isn't this already addressed in (1) above? Also I'm not sure what you mean by "good." Do you mean effective? > > "3. Does it make sense to speak of the universe before there > > were observers?" > > Of course. Speech about any object is speech about a remote object, > > regardless of whether the object is remote in space or time. All > > observation is indirect. > > > >> Thanks for the criticism, > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Lee > > > > Thanks for the sarcasm. ;-) > > > > Lee, I offered no criticism, which would have necessarily entailed > > points about something you produced. > > Jef, "criticism" is *complimentary* in Pan Critical Rationalism. > It's to be appreciated! I was NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST > BEING sarcastic. I meant every word right there. I meant > the "thank you" part, and I meant the "criticism". Criticism > is good because it helps us strengthen our beliefs. Good > beliefs---i.e. beliefs we can have confidence in---are those > that survive criticism. But surely you have read some PCR. Surely I have. Duh. > > I offered only pointers to areas which might nurture certain > > gaps in your thinking. > > Your kindness is overflowing. [1] Has it ever occurred to > you that there might be just as many gaps in your thinking > as there are in others' thinking? "Just as many"? Are you espousing Intellectual Relativism here? ;-) > > Lee > > [1] Now *that's* sarcasm! Lee, you continue to puzzle me. Thanks for that. - Jef From sentience at pobox.com Tue Jul 17 17:47:31 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:47:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Price of Life (was Re: Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity) In-Reply-To: <1daf01c7c87f$1a4bde50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170607x6eb48c3dr562aa05d6f54c105@mail.gmail.com> <1daf01c7c87f$1a4bde50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <469D00B3.9050800@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > Oh. Well, in that case, since you're not really putting a contract > out on me, I don't need to think about it. The answer: eight hundred > trillion dollars (which effectively gives my beneficiaries complete > control of Earth). I'd think that if anyone had eight hundred trillion dollars, it would give everyone else a motive to temporarily stop believing in the figment of our collective imagination that is the financial system, for just long enough to decide that those eight hundred trillion dollars weren't there. "Bill Gates owns everything in the world" may technically look like a self-consistent private property framework, but the problem is that no one except Bill Gates has a motive to believe in it. Others may wake up from the dream if they have no stake. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jul 17 18:48:22 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:48:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Price of Life (was Re: Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity) In-Reply-To: <469D00B3.9050800@pobox.com> References: <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170607x6eb48c3dr562aa05d6f54c105@mail.gmail.com> <1daf01c7c87f$1a4bde50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <469D00B3.9050800@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20070717184822.GV20274@leitl.org> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 10:47:31AM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > "Bill Gates owns everything in the world" may technically look like a > self-consistent private property framework, but the problem is that no > one except Bill Gates has a motive to believe in it. Others may wake > up from the dream if they have no stake. http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1965149,00.html "World's richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers" "50% of world's adults own just 1% of the wealth" -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 20:54:45 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:54:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4699B939.5050602@pobox.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1db901c7c8b4$bd0490d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >> Would you part with all of this and last week's memories you >> have for $10M? I would. > > I probably would, but when I think about the implications of this, I > think that *death is not such a big deal*. If I can agree to die so > that my copy of some time ago lives, I may as well agree to die so > that other people who bear no resemblance to me live, since in neither > case can I anticipate my "successor's" experiences. > > Fear of death and the definition of survival cannot be derived a > priori: they have been programmed into us by evolution. Basically, yes, I'd agree. But Marvin Minsky is reputed to have pointed out that there is no "death instinct" as commonly supposed, though forgive me if I've mentioned that before. Among the things that in the broadest sense evolution does appear to have programmed into us is a high regard for our own general welfare. > If you start adjusting the programming why stop at defining survival > as survival of a copy whose experiences you cannot anticipate, Actually, it wasn't me who first defined death as information loss. :-) In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theoretical_death Wikipeida quotes our cryonicist buddy Ralph Merkle as first---though I'm pretty sure that Mike Perry coined the phrase "Information theory of death" a number of years earlier. Besides, in general I avoid definitions like the plague. As you may know, Korzybski distinguished between "extrinsic" and "intrinsic" definitions, the latter being an "Aristotelian definition" the best example of which is "Man is a featherless biped". In other words, a categorizing sort of definition. An extrinsic defintion, by contrast---and which I just used right here to "define" intrinsic"---is definition by example or an operational definition. Anyway. So since I believe in the information theory of death, i.e., that one is not dead until the information constituting one is thoroughly and irretrievably destroyed, I am forced to regard any surviving sufficiently close copy of me to be sufficient for my survival. I agree with the rest of your remarks. Lee > There is an evolutionary argument - if copying becomes > commonplace, those who regard copies as selves will thrive - but this > is neither a logical argument nor a prescriptive argument. Evolution > would also favour those who have thousands of genetically identical > offspring, but that doesn't mean we should pursue that end if the > means became available. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 21:00:24 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:00:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Price of Life and Meaning of Wealth References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com><0ab401c7c69a$6976b900$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><4699B939.5050602@pobox.com><0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240707170607x6eb48c3dr562aa05d6f54c105@mail.gmail.com><1daf01c7c87f$1a4bde50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <469D00B3.9050800@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1dc501c7c8b6$25186fb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes > Lee Corbin wrote: >> >> Oh. Well, in that case, since you're not really putting a contract >> out on me, I don't need to think about it. The answer: eight hundred >> trillion dollars (which effectively gives my beneficiaries complete >> control of Earth). > > I'd think that if anyone had eight hundred trillion dollars, it would > give everyone else a motive to temporarily stop believing in the > figment of our collective imagination that is the financial system, > for just long enough to decide that those eight hundred trillion > dollars weren't there. Yes. In fact, the $800T would have to come in the form of hidden ownership of this and that just about everythng, probably including undiscovered gold, oil, and other minerals, and if need be, advanced technology. I really don't know what would be needed to come up with an honest, real, genuine, and legitimate $800T. Wealth only means possession of things that other people value, and doesn't necessarily mean that they have to *know* you have it :-) Lee > "Bill Gates owns everything in the world" may technically look like a > self-consistent private property framework, but the problem is that no > one except Bill Gates has a motive to believe in it. Others may wake > up from the dream if they have no stake. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 21:17:48 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:17:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Reality of Categories References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170712p323b86fbq54f566e64f141888@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1dc801c7c8b8$3fdffcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > [Lee wrote] > > [Stathis wrote] > > > What would you actually say to an alien who > > > thought you were crazy to assert that the rock > > > was the same rock as yesterday? > > > > I would first make sure that there was not a communication > > problem. Then I would ask him why the two rocks were > > not the same. He might say that one was a "today-rock" > > and one was a "yesterday-rock", but that would probably > > indicate nothing more than a communication or language > > difficulty. > > I wonder if the communication problem could be resolved. > Sure, we can agree on language usage, but ultimately the > message originates from a specific perspective and must > reach a destination perspective different from that origin. > In a human-to-human context, there is enough similarity > in past experience that the point of view on an abstract > point is negligible. Yes, one is always struck by how quickly Europeans and native peoples were able to understand each other. Cortez (and I think Columbus himself) really had very little difficulty in making themselves understood. It's just as you say: the human-to-human context could overcome thousands of years of nearly absolute linguistic separation. > Given the parallax between human and alien perspectives, > there may be increasing difficulty constructing any language- > encapsulated thought that could be properly received and > understood. Perhaps over the course of enough context- > sharing where human-thought becomes more alien and > alien-thought becomes more human, the gap can be narrowed. Without doubt! Especially if I'm right about categories being universal and objective. In all likelihood the alien would have "cut" up the physical world the same way we do, and I would not be too surprised if his or her or its social world was similarly configured. Of course, science-fiction writers have been in the forefront of exploring alien psychologies, though I don't remember any of them dwelling for long on the initial first-contact communication difficulties. Oh, I take that back: I got halfway through "Blindsight" (before giving up on it), and it went on and on and on and on and on in the most mystifying way possible underscoring over and over how nonsensical and bizarre the aliens seemed to be. That may have been the most irritating feature of the book; the ancient technique of substituting obscurity for difficult description, which possibly started, I dunno, as far back as the thirties? > I also considered the rock example as a point of view > problem like this: The rock is the monolith from 2001: > A Space Odyssey. We are each in the same plane > relative to the monolith, at equal distance and right > angles. You see a black surface that is 1 unit by 4 units. > I see a black surface 1 unit by 9 units. We are in > agreement about the 1 unit measure (I assume our > concept of "black surface" also agrees) Our > description of the other observable dimension > is inherently a matter of our positions relative to > the object. A third (contrived) observer in another > plane may only see the 4x9 face. We may have > some language or communication medium with > which to exchange our concept of this object, > but without a frame of reference we won't be > able to communicate properly. What? Unless I've misunderstood, NO WAY. Each of us sees the entire parallepiped, just as you see a circle inscribed in a figure on a piece of paper before you. (You *perceive* an ellipse, it is true, a point that wouldn't be called for here except that this thread is about categories.) > I wonder if the aliens from this example can > directly observe a temporal dimension of the > rock as we would examine spatial dimensions. That'd be *great* for their survival capabilities! That such would be so powerful and yet it hardly seems to have evolved to much (if any) degree is what keeps me doubtful about psi. Lee > If that were true, then they would be more like the third observer than any in "our" plane. I always wondered if the monolith's > dimension 1x4x9 continued as squares of the dimension, such that the fourth dimension of the monolith would be 16, etc. Also, > considering the vanishing point notion of perspective, could a sufficiently wide object be detectable along its width even if the > depth were too small (less than a Planck length) [reminds me of Flatland (1)] (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland < From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Jul 17 22:07:59 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:07:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] BLINDSIGHT In-Reply-To: <1dc801c7c8b8$3fdffcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170712p323b86fbq54f566e64f141888@mail.gmail.com> <1dc801c7c8b8$3fdffcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070717170648.0231c450@satx.rr.com> At 02:17 PM 7/17/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: >I got halfway through "Blindsight" (before giving >up on it), and it went on and on and on and on and on in >the most mystifying way possible underscoring over and over >how nonsensical and bizarre the aliens seemed to be. >That may have been the most irritating feature of the book A brilliantly effective and thrilling novel, IMO, fwiw. Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Jul 17 22:30:47 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:30:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] BLINDSIGHT In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070717170648.0231c450@satx.rr.com> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170712p323b86fbq54f566e64f141888@mail.gmail.com> <1dc801c7c8b8$3fdffcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070717170648.0231c450@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: At 02:17 PM 7/17/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > I got halfway through "Blindsight" (before giving > up on it), and it went on and on and on and on and on in > the most mystifying way possible underscoring over and over > how nonsensical and bizarre the aliens seemed to be. Blindsight and blind-spot. The gods must be laughing just now. I enjoyed the book, aside from it being just a bit too predictable. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 17 23:31:03 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:31:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb201c7c79f$b0b26fc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0c01c7c817$65a23240$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1dd301c7c8ca$8c89f970$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes >> > Lee, you began this thread by asking "Is my epistemology really >> > screwed up at a fundamental level?", but you then proceeded to pose >> > problems that appear to be entirely ontological[1], rather than >> > epistemological[2]. It's as if you and I are speaking different >> > languages; might you be conflating or juxtaposing the two? >> >> Oh, yes, and thanks for bringing it up. > > Meaning "Yes, I was mindful or pre-accepting of this, and glad you > appreciate the issue"? :-) Not quite. I meant "yes" I know the difference between epistemology and ontology, and so while "no" (I do not conflate or mix-up the two of them) in general, yes in this case I was unmindful that these were properly speaking ontological issues, and finally yes, I am was (and am) glad you appreciate the issue, and am (and was) thanking you for spotting and bringing it up. Okay? >> Besides, epistemology >> is these days still controversial, but scientifically educated >> people seem all to be in agreement over ontology. > > So it seems that you believe the distinction is not only vague, but > unproductive. I think your belief supports your chronic blind-spot. Now please look at these two sentences, yours and mine. I'm making claims entirely in keeping with the *issues* here in this thread, while you characteristically and almost (it seems) involuntarily have to keep delving into some property of my general thinking about some range of issues, They seem to me to be more speculations---that are very liable to give offense, by the way---about someone's chronic and personal tendencies, and these speculations shift the discussion away from substance and towards personal attributes, as though you were analysing someone's character rather than discussing issues. Can you say why you do this, and, it seems to me, do it rather often? >> > Your response (Q1-3) highlights my point. Yours are ontological >> > questions, about incidentally epistemological observers. You're >> > asking what exists, without consideration of the more fundamental >> > question of what can be known. >> >> :-) Well, some of us think that the inquiry must begin at the >> ontological level: we (realists?) believe ourselves to begin with >> "the given", but *not* in an axiomatic way, but rather in a way >> more reminiscent of PCR. You should love it: it's "what >> works". > > I do appreciate pan-critical rationalism, it's essentially the > scientific method applied to beliefs. I suspect, however, that Max's > exposition of it would be somewhat different done now, in contrast > with what he wrote 13 years ago. > > >> We *know* what we're talking about when we >> talk about carburetors (well, at least some of us!), and >> when we're talking about mountains, streams, trees, and >> animals. > > This appears to be another of your straw-men. I have no confusion > about carburetors, mountains, streams, trees and animals, and have Hmm. I think I see what happened. Blame the low-bandwidth media? When I wrote above >> :-) Well, some of us think that the inquiry must begin at the you properly and correctly understood that to be a category to which you possibly (so far as I knew) did not belong, and then you retained this *same* understanding of the word "us" (but in the form "we") when you got to >> We *know* what we're talking about when we >> talk about carburetors (well, at least some of us!), and I did *not* mean "We" in the sense of we who adhere to the realist position. I meant "we" as human beings. Surely it would be absurd for me to suppose that nominalists, or empiricists, or rationalists, or what-have-you would not all be equally familiar with carburetors, mountains, streams, etc. Jef, it baffles me that you could have assumed that I was making aspersions on your understanding of carburetors, mountains, streams, trees and animals. But is it not the case that this is exactly what you thought? Your words above certainly seem to indicate it! And my parenthetical remark "(well, at least some of us!)" actually was meant to exclude the unmechanical among us, e.g., me. (I can see how that could have begun to confirm your suspicion that I was attacking your understanding, but when I got to mountains, streams, trees, and animals in the very same phrase????) More later, if time today, Lee P.S. Though this is not a complete reply to your post (our discussion is getting rather lengthy) could you please reply to the above first? Thanks. From randall at randallsquared.com Tue Jul 17 23:49:49 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:49:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Blindsight (SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: <1dc801c7c8b8$3fdffcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <02a501c7b689$23834a10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170712p323b86fbq54f566e64f141888@mail.gmail.com> <1dc801c7c8b8$3fdffcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: SPOILERS FOR BLINDSIGHT FOLLOW On Jul 17, 2007, at 5:17 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > I don't remember any of them dwelling for long on the > initial first-contact communication difficulties. Oh, I take > that back: I got halfway through "Blindsight" (before giving > up on it), and it went on and on and on and on and on in > the most mystifying way possible underscoring over and over > how nonsensical and bizarre the aliens seemed to be. > That may have been the most irritating feature of the book; > the ancient technique of substituting obscurity for difficult > description, which possibly started, I dunno, as far back as > the thirties? Actually, all that had a point, and I found it a really good novel, if emotionally unsatisfying. The point of the story was that if intelligence without consciousness is possible, then entities which are intelligent but not conscious might well have an advantage over those which are intelligent but take up valuable time and resources with what is effectively a busy-loop in between perception and decision. At the end of the novel, it's clear that the protagonist is the last surviving conscious being in this neck of the woods. -- 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 lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 18 00:45:19 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:45:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] BLINDSIGHT References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com><0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><62c14240707170712p323b86fbq54f566e64f141888@mail.gmail.com><1dc801c7c8b8$3fdffcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070717170648.0231c450@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1de301c7c8d5$1a44bc50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > At 02:17 PM 7/17/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > >> I got halfway through "Blindsight" (before giving >> up on it), and it went on and on and on and on and on in >> the most mystifying way possible underscoring over and over >> how nonsensical and bizarre the aliens seemed to be. > > Blindsight and blind-spot. The gods must be laughing just now. Jef, would you please stop. Please stop attempting to prove---using every device you seem to be capable of thinking of---that I have blindspots, or that I'm dumb or whatever it is? Now you've co-opted a perfectly innocent thread to meet your agenda. Please refrain from these slights and attacks. You have *no* idea how I read SF, why I read SF, how much time I spend reading SF, and have (besides all that) no idea what my tastes are. Please stop groping for more proof that I have a blindspot. For your information, the answers are: I spend about an hour per week on SF these days, reading just a very few pages--if that--at a sitting. I believe (but don't really know) that I read it for pure entertainment and emotional release, not, as in the old days, in search of some little philosophic gem that had escaped me. I happen to vastly prefer total clarity (as in chess, for example) and don't happen at all to like obscurity (as in bridge, for example). There is no accounting for taste. But above all, LAY OFF. I have had more than I can take. Lee > I enjoyed the book, aside from it being just a bit too predictable. > > - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Jul 18 02:02:46 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:02:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] BLINDSIGHT In-Reply-To: <1de301c7c8d5$1a44bc50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170712p323b86fbq54f566e64f141888@mail.gmail.com> <1dc801c7c8b8$3fdffcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070717170648.0231c450@satx.rr.com> <1de301c7c8d5$1a44bc50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 7/17/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Jef, would you please stop. > > Please stop attempting to prove---using every device you seem > to be capable of thinking of---that I have blindspots, or that I'm > dumb or whatever it is? Whatever it is, it's not working. Have fun in the sandbox and I'll try to ignore you. - Jef From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 18 02:30:32 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:30:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] The rock "was The Reality of Categories" Message-ID: <168213.39758.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >What would you actually say to an alien who thought >you were crazy to assert that the rock was the same >rock as yesterday? >I would first make sure that there was not a >communication problem. Then I would ask him why the >two rocks were not the same. He might say that one >was a "today-rock" and one was a "yesterday-rock", >but that would probably indicate nothing more than a >communication or language difficulty. Yes I agree, thanks for the thought, language has always been a problem within communication. I would ask the alien; "as i've observed the rock for at least 10 years, the rock hasn't changed". At the same time I understand that "the rock" has came in contact with many of species, is the rock different or has the rock changed "the specie". Is this what you where getting at? Just Curious Anna Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Jul 18 06:19:16 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:49:16 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Communication with aliens (was Re: The Reality of Categories) In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70707170950q4f76e786r8dfaf93575f1f249@mail.gmail.com> References: <55ad6af70707170950q4f76e786r8dfaf93575f1f249@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0707172319l4c6b3d2dx1fc378f2329e7d3b@mail.gmail.com> > For example: > http://www.orionsarm.com/worlds/Whisper.html > - how would you hack this grass so that you could communicate? > > - Bryan That's almost a straight steal from an old Ursula LeGuin story (can't remember the name - I think in that story the vegetation communicated via the root systems). Anyway, communication would be possible, but hard :-) You've got the innards of the computer available and studyable, just by using a lot of microphones, so if you can figure out how it works, you should be able to hack it pretty severely, eg by replacing large sections of plants with "speakers" playing back signals generated by your own simulation system. Then, you could project yourself into the system. The above assumes of course that the critters inside the plant computer are open to communication. The problem of communicating with beings who don't want to communicate is a different thing altogether, it requires opening a channel of communication as above, and then becomes a problem of persuasion. Emlyn From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Jul 18 07:01:44 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:31:44 +0930 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <200707170441.l6H4foIk009772@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716214803.021b1ea8@satx.rr.com> <200707170441.l6H4foIk009772@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0707180001i45c6f8c4n2ddd1119e3689211@mail.gmail.com> On 17/07/07, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > > Subject: Re: [ExI] water control > > > > At 04:12 PM 7/16/2007 -0700, Spike wrote: > > > > > > >Texas has been > > >recently pounded by excess rain. Pahdnuh. But this is a problem that > > >can be solved. > > > > Here's more than you could possibly want to know > > about one plan based in part on naturally replenishable aquifers: > > > > http://www.swtexaslive.com/july2006/eason > > > Damien, you are surely more studied up on this than I, but I have a hard > time taking too seriously the notion than an underground lake could be > depleted permanently. If water is drawn out of the ground thru a pipe, my > intuition is that water can be dropped back down there, thru the same pipe > if necessary, to be drawn up again when it is needed. It seems to me that > aquifers could be used as capacitors for water, especially useful in times > of flooding such as the Texas events described by the local "news" agencies. > > Your childhood home Australia is a dry continent. The Australians should > have developed some really bitchin water control technologies. We have much > to learn from them, ja? I'm about to start working for a company looking at doing exactly that. The idea is to put stormwater down into the acquifer during winter (after cleaning up a bit and yada yada details that the software guy doesn't need to know), and pump it back out as needed during summer, especially for watering greenspace stuff like sports fields I think. It's still early days though. Emlyn > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jul 18 07:14:39 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:14:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707180001i45c6f8c4n2ddd1119e3689211@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716214803.021b1ea8@satx.rr.com> <200707170441.l6H4foIk009772@lily.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0707180001i45c6f8c4n2ddd1119e3689211@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070718071439.GQ20274@leitl.org> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:31:44PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > It's still early days though. Indeed. Nevermind a 100 m^2 closed-loop ecosystem capable of sustaining a single monkey. Even if it only completely recycles the waste and the water, that would be something. And your best bet is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 18 08:30:04 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:30:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] no sarcasm intended Message-ID: <1df601c7c916$4839cec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> An off-line correspondent wrote me tonight to comment on my "daydream": > In my daydreams of one day being resurrected by > advanced nanotechnology in the year 2061, I fully hope > to have a vastly intelligent robot (real or uploaded) > at my side who can guide me in my decisions. "Uh, you > might not want to mess with > that right now, Lee, while your IQ is still less than > 200 and your hippocampus has not been adequately > augmented. Recall what your friend Stathis was talking > about back in 2007? He was quite right." > > Now, that is sarcastic humour! LOL Well, it was *not* meant to be sarcastic in any way whatsoever. I'm very sorry if I've given any offense here, because there was no intention in any way, shape, manner, or form for that to be any other than a clear confirmation of what someone was saying (I think Stathis) that we would always be wise to proceed with great caution when being augmented! Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 18 08:36:34 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:36:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The rock "was The Reality of Categories" References: <168213.39758.qm@web30404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1dfa01c7c916$fc0b9730$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Anna writes > On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > What would you actually say to an alien who thought > > you were crazy to assert that the rock was the same > > rock as yesterday? > > > I would first make sure that there was not a > > communication problem. Then I would ask him why the > > two rocks were not the same. He might say that one > > was a "today-rock" and one was a "yesterday-rock", > > but that would probably indicate nothing more than a > > communication or language difficulty. > > Yes I agree, thanks for the thought, language has > always been a problem within communication. > > I would ask the alien; "as i've observed the rock for > at least 10 years, the rock hasn't changed". At the > same time I understand that "the rock" has came in > contact with many of species, is the rock different or > has the rock changed "the specie". > > Is this what you where getting at? > > Just Curious > Anna Well, no, because rocks always *do* change, even though it's not easy to observe it. But if you were to use a microscope, you'd see that indeed the surface undergoes alterations in various ways, sometimes eroding a bit, sometimes getting a tiny thin layer of other material. When we were discussing that, I believe that my correspondents and I were supposing that insofar as these tiny changes are concerned, that particular species is extraordinarily sensitive. So in this wise it is conceivable that the creature might deny the "sameness" of the rock, even though to us it clearly had not changed. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 18 08:51:18 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:51:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >> In your medical practice, have you yourself been under the influence >> of midazolam? (Sorry if we've had this discussion before---I really >> don't keep as straight as I should who has said what months ago.) > > No, but I've probably given it to hundreds of patients in anaesthetics > (IV), paediatrics (squirted into the mouth of the little struggling > tyke with a syringe) and psychiatry (IM). BTW, midazolam is nothing > special as a drug, being just a short-acting benzodiazepine. Diazepam > (Valium) has a similar, if slightly weaker, amnesic effect if given > IV, and a wide variety of other sedative drugs, like alcohol, also > have the same effect in sufficiently high dosages. > ... > One complicating factor with midazolam is that it is a very powerful > anxiolytic at the dosages that produce amnesia, so that patients are > basically too zonked out to care much about what is happening to them > anyway. Thanks for the info on midazolam: I had never considered that I might be in any but an ordinary state of mind. (Never been drunk myself, etc.) > That consideration aside, one reason it is not as frightening > as death is that, as you say, at the point where you about to take the > drug, death is not guaranteed in the way it is guaranteed if you are > about to have a lethal injection. But having taken the drug, it should > be just like waiting for your execution. If it isn't disturbing, then > to be consistent waiting for your execution shouldn't be disturbing > either. Actually I would not---as you suspect---be all that perturbed at knowing that I was going to lose memories. For example, it would be rather swell if I lost all of today's memories between 3pm and 6pm :-) I believe to the core of my innermost being that duplicates are selves. It may be that to you this is nothing more than a severe self-brainwashing, but as you know there are substantial arguments to back up this view. In fact, Max More wrote a very nice article in my current issue of Cryonet. While he did not quite get into the existence of multiple copies of one, he did embrace the information theory of death. (And I know from his "Luckiest Man in the Universe" scenario, in which Francis Bacon by sheer luck is brought back to life by a random collision of molecules---and argued by Max to be just as legitimate a copy of Bacon as was the original---is bolstered by quite a few arguments in his thesis. Anyway, while it may be less than a self- inflicted brainwashing, it is more than just my opinion. However, in the same article Ben Goetzel defends what I call the "path conception of identity", in which the final *state* is not what is important, and is not evaluation, but the *path* by which the state is reached. A good friend of mine endorses this path- view of identity. Perhaps you'd find it appealing too. >> So let's say that you have terminal cancer (heaven forbid), and >> are going to die in three months, and it so happens that a copy >> of you was made four months ago, and frozen, and can be cured. >> If I understand correctly, you do not believe that you will survive >> in this scenario. Therefore, do you care whether your duplicate >> is defrosted and continues your projects, or a brand new (and >> very energetic and thorough) person is found in the unemployment >> lines who will capably continue your projects? (And let's leave >> out, for convenience, any familial attachments and so on that are >> in principle irrelevant.) > > I don't see why I should prefer that the duplicate be defrosted. Yup. I guess we're at an impasse here. To me, the structure is everything, the pattern is everything, and to you it's simply not. > This is going on my standard issue feelings about what it means to survive. > If I can overcome these feelings, which I admit are not based on any > logic or empirical fact, then I could as easily decide that the > survival of my duplicate is no more consolation than the survival of a > similarly capable different person. Yes, well, I'd never go for that! :-) > What this whole topic means to me is that death is not what I thought > it was 20 years ago. If I can convince myself that I die every moment, > or die through memory loss, or survive through a copy (even an old > copy), or any of the other complicated variations we discuss, then > death ceases to be absolute or straightforward, and becomes less > worrying even if nothing in the world changes. I hope that doesn't > sound like bioluddite thanatolatry, because I still wish that some > version of me will see the far future. Me too, in both senses! (I.e., I both wish that you see the far future, and I as well.) Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Jul 18 11:31:29 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:31:29 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity In-Reply-To: <1db901c7c8b4$bd0490d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1db901c7c8b4$bd0490d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 18/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Actually, it wasn't me who first defined death as information loss. :-) > In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theoretical_death > Wikipeida quotes our cryonicist buddy Ralph Merkle as first---though > I'm pretty sure that Mike Perry coined the phrase "Information theory > of death" a number of years earlier. > > Besides, in general I avoid definitions like the plague. As you may know, > Korzybski distinguished between "extrinsic" and "intrinsic" definitions, > the latter being an "Aristotelian definition" the best example of which > is "Man is a featherless biped". In other words, a categorizing sort > of definition. > > An extrinsic defintion, by contrast---and which I just used right here > to "define" intrinsic"---is definition by example or an operational > definition. Anyway. > > So since I believe in the information theory of death, i.e., that one is > not dead until the information constituting one is thoroughly and > irretrievably destroyed, I am forced to regard any surviving sufficiently > close copy of me to be sufficient for my survival. What this discussion about the definition of "death" reminds me of is attempts to define "good" and G.E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy. It is possible to define death in a particular way, for example Heartland's definition of cessation (even if temporary) of brain processes, or the above definition of information loss, and then be perfectly logical and scientific about determining whether death has occurred according to that definition. But then, why define it that way? In the end, you know what it is to be alive every day rather than dead (as you know what is good rather than bad) and then you try to come up with a definition that is consistent with this knowledge; in other words, you have an operational definition in mind and try to come up with an intrinsic definition. You can get this wrong if it turns out that the definition is not in keeping with your intuition in a particular case, since that was the purpose of the definition in the first place. For example, I would say the brain process cessation definition is wrong because it is entirely consistent to suppose that this phenomenon might have been happening every moment of what you would otherwise have thought was ordinary life, and certainly not repeated death. The idea that the ultimate standard against which a definition of death is to be measured is not some precise and unequivocal test but a feeling or a way of thinking makes questions about personal identity in a way akin to questions about ethics or aesthetics. I'd prefer it if this were not so, but I don't see a way around it. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Jul 18 12:11:25 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:11:25 +1000 Subject: [ExI] no sarcasm intended In-Reply-To: <1df601c7c916$4839cec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1df601c7c916$4839cec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 18/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > An off-line correspondent wrote me tonight to comment > on my "daydream": > > > In my daydreams of one day being resurrected by > > advanced nanotechnology in the year 2061, I fully hope > > to have a vastly intelligent robot (real or uploaded) > > at my side who can guide me in my decisions. "Uh, you > > might not want to mess with > > that right now, Lee, while your IQ is still less than > > 200 and your hippocampus has not been adequately > > augmented. Recall what your friend Stathis was talking > > about back in 2007? He was quite right." > > > > Now, that is sarcastic humour! LOL > > Well, it was *not* meant to be sarcastic in any way whatsoever. > > I'm very sorry if I've given any offense here, because there was > no intention in any way, shape, manner, or form for that to be > any other than a clear confirmation of what someone was > saying (I think Stathis) that we would always be wise to proceed > with great caution when being augmented! Thank-you for for being so considerate - no offence taken, not even the first time I read it. -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Jul 18 13:29:47 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:29:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200707181329.l6IDTpEi012926@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > > ... For example, it would > be rather swell if I lost all of today's memories between 3pm and 6pm > :-) ... Lee Lee you worry me with such comments. Dentistry? Appointment with goons from the IRS? A talk with the judge regarding excessive speed on the freeway? Nothing life threatening I hope. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Jul 18 13:57:10 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:57:10 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 18/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > I believe to the core of my innermost being that duplicates are selves. > It may be that to you this is nothing more than a severe self-brainwashing, > but as you know there are substantial arguments to back up this view. > In fact, Max More wrote a very nice article in my current issue of > Cryonet. While he did not quite get into the existence of multiple > copies of one, he did embrace the information theory of death. I've changed my view on survival through copies which are not up to date, mostly through discussions with you. I originally thought that it was obviously false, but now I see it as presenting a conundrum: (a) Death is bad because if I die, I can anticipate no further experiences. (b) However, partial memory loss through drugs like midazolam also results in a state of mind from which I can anticipate no further experiences, and that doesn't seem so bad. (c) Therefore *either* death is not so bad *or* there is something else about death, not present in the memory loss example, which makes it bad. (d) The difference between what we normally think of as death and the memory loss example is that in the latter someone with some of my past experiences will be able to anticipate future experiences, even though I-now won't. (e) Therefore, maybe death is not bad if someone with some of my past experiences is left behind. (f) But to change my original view to the above seems hardly easier than deciding that death with no copies left behind is not bad. You see, there are several consistent positions possible, and which one I choose depends on psychological factors, not on science or logic. > (And I know from his "Luckiest Man in the Universe" scenario, in which > Francis Bacon by sheer luck is brought back to life by a random > collision of molecules---and argued by Max to be just as legitimate > a copy of Bacon as was the original---is bolstered by quite a few > arguments in his thesis. Anyway, while it may be less than a self- > inflicted brainwashing, it is more than just my opinion. > > However, in the same article Ben Goetzel defends what I call the > "path conception of identity", in which the final *state* is not > what is important, and is not evaluation, but the *path* by which > the state is reached. A good friend of mine endorses this path- > view of identity. Perhaps you'd find it appealing too. I think Bacon would still be the Bacon he was at the time of which the copy is a representation, but not the Bacon he became after that (that is, even if the copy was made aeons after all original Bacons were gone, and regardless of how the copy was made). That's the straightforward case, and I'd go as far as saying that I don't see how it could logically be otherwise, without allowing that Bacon might have been a different person from day to day even before his death in 1626. (Well, he was strictly speaking changing from moment to moment, but he *felt* he was the same person, and that's what matters in this context.) Could you explain the path identity concept further, or give me a reference I can look up? -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 18 17:15:41 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:15:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bad Epistemology? References: <0b6501c7c753$4d071030$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1e1901c7c95f$49bcbb10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> When I began this thread, I wrote some (unfortunately) rather confused thoughts about basic ontology/epistemology in an effort to see if anyone would or could see problems with what I suppose to be the rather basic realist view. I wrote > Is my epistemology really screwed up at a fundamental level? > > If so, it's got to be pretty subtle, and I would appreciate any > help from anyone: professional philosopher or armchair > amateur alike. > > An extremely thorough and carefully written book I'm reading > encompasses the most modern and sophisticated physical > theories impinges on epistemology. ("How is Quantum Field > Theory Possible?", by Auyang.) > > First, let me lay out how I, as a loyal, reverent, and steadfast > realist, understand the world, i.e., what my epistemology is. There were several helpful replies, and I'll comment on one from Bryan and his friend Kurtis. First, here are the five points that I made: > 1. There is a real world "out there" composed of all manner > of real things. We have names for these things, e.g., electron, > quark, photon, gluon, and so forth. We even have names for > conglomerations of these things, e.g. "table", "star", "desk", > "atom", and "galaxy". I guess that no one had a problem with that. > 2. These real things *affect* each other, even though they're > really all comprised solely of quantum fields according to > our best and awesome and outstanding theories. These fields > not only pervade space, but space in the absence of these > fields is not even conceivable (according to the doctrines > of quantum field theory (QFT)). [All is plenum; Newton > was wrong; nature indeed abhors a void; the doctrine of > substantivalism is--or should be--dead.] Again, maybe I was still on-track here, and maybe not. The next two items I wrote in reaction to a book I'm reading "How is Quantum Field Theory Possible", by a Dr. Sunny Auyang, who teaches (or taught) at M.I.T. Bryan actually requested that I say more about this book, and today I'll begin doing that in another thread. > 3. Loosely speaking, we erroneously call such real noumena, > that is, the ding-an-sich, the things in themselves "objects". > (We get away with this in everyday speech because it has > no untoward consequences. In actuality, in QFT, an > object is a theoretical construct: Kant was right.) This shows the influence of Kant, as explained by the author of that book. The next point, point 4, is where I suspect that I wander off into incomprehensibility (but see below): > 4. Objects as such---strictly speaking---do not reside in the > mind. Nor do they reside in 3-space, any more than the > number 6 resides in our minds or in space. Theories and > ideas and other patterns exist really and Platonically > whether or not people, or cameras, or quarks, or space, > or time, or any other things happen to exist It turns out that according to Auyang, I was failing to discriminate between her two different uses of the word "object". There is a narrower sense---a part of an abstract philosophical Kantian type analysis, and a broader sense, "the Empirical Object", which is what I gather we ordinarily talk about, and which I think can perhaps be regarded as equivalent to "thing". Anyway, Bryan's friend Kurtis wrote > > I find number 4 a little bit baffling. Again, maybe this is my own > > misunderstanding. But how can you, on the one hand in 1 declare that the > > universe is made of real things, in 2 declare that space in the absence of > > fields has no meaning, and then on the other hand in 4 declare that objects > > do not exist in 3 space? Is the distinction that when he says objects he > > really means "chair" and not "*a* chair," or "*that* chair?" From reading > > 5, I don't think this is the case. He's probably right. What I wrote was a bit of a mess. But then just after reading that, I happened to run across an entire section in Auyang's book entitled "The Extended Object". In my next post I'll present that section, which may serve several excellent purposes, and then later perhaps return to clarify the above. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 18 17:31:17 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:31:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "The Empirical Object", by Dr. Sunny Auyang Message-ID: <1e1d01c7c962$1d3c2f50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> This is an excerpt from Sunny Auyang's book, "How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?". The section is "The Empirical Object" and begins on p.99. One purpose served here is that anyone curious about the book can see a sample page of her writing, (which I happen to consider to be extraordinarily clear, although difficult to get through because of the difficulty of the material). I will intersperse my own comments and summary from time to time. "The Empirical Object" (by Sunny Auyang) "Object" is used in two senses in the following. The narrower sense is the *physical object* whose state is represented by x in Fig. 5.1.[in a typical differential geometry type diagram, where x is a point in an abstract manifold]. The broader sense is the *empirical object*, the topic of knowledge. "Empirical" here includes only the conceptual aspect of experiences, which are recognized as a kind of representation; it does not include the sensual aspect, which was considered in section 12. An empirical object is an object-variously-representable-but-independent-of-representations. The concept of empirical objects is represented by the full structure in Fig. 5.1; it includes the physical object as a conceptual element. Okay, the most of this may not be making much sense to you if you have not been reading the book. It should become clearer, however: The introduction of the physical object whose state is x not only adds an element in our conceptual structure; it enriches the elements discussed earlier. For the first time [in the book], the idea of representation *of* something is made explicit. The physical object reinforces the common-sense notion of things that are independent of our representations. On the other hand, since representations are associated with observations of things, the idea of phenomena becomes more weighty. The multiplicity of representations of the same object forces us to acknowledge the idiosyncrasies of particular representations; hence it clarifies the meaning of conventionality. Here x is an element of a "manifold", which in this case is an abstract state space of all the *possible* states that the thing (ordinary object) could be in. In differential geometry, x is a point in the manifold M introduces the possibility of "coordinate functions" So picture M as a two or three dimensional space residing "above" one or more coordinate spaces (that is, ones composed of ordinary Euclidean coordinate systems. The functions fa and fb are arrows from x into these coordinate patches. ("Patch" is really the technical term for the one or more N-dimensional coordinate spaces just described.) Again, all this is standard differential geometry (of manifolds). But I can hardly do justice to dozens of preceding pages of the book which might make what you are reading more understandable. Since the object x is categorically different from any of its representations, the mean of [the coordinate function a] is no longer unanalyzable. It is now coordinates-of-x equals fa(x), reading "the value coordinate-of-x for the property type fa", the predicate coordinates-of-x of x in the representation fa(M)", or "the appearance of the coordinates-of-x from the perspective fa(M)" Various representations can be drastically different, but they represent the same object. The same electromagnetic configuration that is a mess in the Cartesian coordinates can become simplicity itself when represented in the spherical coordinates. However, the two representations are equivalent. Okay, here is what this is all about. There are real things out there ("ding-an-sich") which in scientific theories may be represented by a state space. That is, each of the supposed states of the object is a point in the manifold representation (or theory, or picture). x is a point in the state space. So we cannot quite say that "x *is* the object", else we run afoul of all the problems Korzybski warned about when we use the word "is". In a literal sense, x only represents a physical object in a particular state. In your physical theory. This really does soon get back to people and how people understand the universe, hang tight! fa (the function f-sub-a describes x in one coordinate system, say rectangular) and fb (another function that takes the point x into a coordinate space) are further representations of x, but this time in ordinary coordinate systems. Sadly, I cannot find any good pictures on the web to illustrate this, but this here isn't too awful: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold, but you don't see the arrow functions fa and fb from x into ordinary coordinate systems. The point is, like she says, that various representations of the same object can be quite different. [The last heavy-duty math paragraph]. Since fa and fb are imbedded in the meaning of coordinate-function-a-of-x and coordinate-function-b-of-x, the transformation fb of the inverse of fa connects the two representations in a necessary way dictated by the object x. fb of f-inverse-b is a composite map. It not only pairs the two predicates a-coordinates-of-x and b-coordinates-of-x, it identifies them as representations of the *same* object x, to which it refers via the individual maps f-inverse-a and fb. Since fb of f-inverse-a always points to an object x, the representations they connect not only enjoy intersubjective agreement; they are also objectively valid. To use Kant's words, the representations are no longer connected merely by habit; they are united *in the object*. I regret for not being able to use the real math symbols in this medium, and I also regret that I could not find on the web a good picture of an "atlas" with its coordinate functions that appears in dozens of books. In fact, Auyang's diagrams are excellent, but rather standard. The next (math-free) paragraphs make this clearer, I hope. The objective state x is called coordinate-free or representation-free. This is not an arbitrary designation but an active negative concept that signifies a *lack* of representation. The invariant x explicitly articulates the commonsense notion that physical objects are independent of our conventions and free from the arbitrariness of our perceptual conditions. A negation is a distinction between what is and what is not; for instance, what is given and what is not, what is conventional and what is not. A theory must have certain minimum conceptual complexity to internalize a distinction. The negativity, being free from or independent of, drives a wedge between the physical state and its representations, which become truly significant in the larger conceptual framework. Since modern physical theories have internalized the distinction signifying detachment, they themselves can assert objectivity for their objective statements, a task of which older theories are incapable. The repressentation-transformation-invariance structure can also represent momentary perceptual experiences. There is a whole previous section in the book about the "representation-transformation-invariance" structure. It's quite interesting and important, but basically it's really nothing more than this same diagram that shows a Manifold, and a couple of coordinate functions that take points, or a typical point x, in the manifold to coordinate spaces. The paragraph continues The content of an experience is represented by the coordinates of [x in the a or b Euclidean space], for observations are always specific. The conceptual complexity of the equation that equates the a-coordinates-of-x to the value of the function fa(x) implies that we directly access the object x in our experiences and do not indirectly infer it from some given sense impressions. The object is not a transcendent reality but is immanent in experiences. Looking at the other side of the coin, the phenomenon "coordinates-of-x" is not a semblance of mere appearance that stands for something else; it is what the object shows itself in itself. The idiosyncrasy in coordinates-of-x is ascribed to the conditions of experience. The conceptual complexity implies that our experiential content goes beyond mere sensory stimulation. When we observe a particular representation coordinates-of-x, we simultaneously observe [or are aware of] the invariance-under-transformations-of-representations [her hyphenated words, not mine]. Suppose x represents a round table and [the a-coordinates of x and the b-coordinates of x] various elliptical profiles. When we see the table from an angle, we see *in* the particular profile its invariance when seen from alternative angles. This is how we distinguish a round table from an ellipse. Understand what she's saying here? There is a real table out there, and the whole "categorical framework" we use when applying common sense allows us to understand that the mere appearances (depending on angle) are not to be confused with the thing-in-itself. The appearances are like coordinates, or the values of coordinate functions taking points in the state space of the object (table) to appearances. The categorical framework of objects is a unitary whole. The physical object x is neither posited in advance nor constructed out of its representations afterwards. It is defined simultaneously and encoded in all its representations in the integral structure. Neither the representation-free x nor the representation a-coordinates-of-x alone is sufficient to characterize the primitive unit of empirical knowledge. Both and their interrelation are required; x realizes the general conditions for the possibility of objects *and the coordinates the general conditions for the possibility of experiences of objects*. The two arise together in objective knowledge, as Kant argued. Representation-transformation-invariance is an integral structure that realizes the general concept of empirical objects in physical theories. Since the concept of empirical objects has enough complexity to endow the content of experiences with meaning beyond what meets the eye, it can account for doubts, errors, illusions, and partial knowledge. There are enough elements in the categorical structure so that some can be left blank without a total collapse of comprehension. We may know a-coordinates-of-x but not b-coordinates-of-x, or we may know both but not the transformation relating them. A nice example she gave earlier is that of a desk. "Imagine," she wrote on page 92, "two persons seeing something. One says it is a sea of electrons in an ionic lattice. The other says "What? It's a plain old metal desk," and mutters, "crazy physicist". So there is this same object x (or represented by x in the state space) and two different coordinate functions on x. What is important is that in order to be able to understand each other, we require fa of f-inverse-b, or in other words, a way of connecting the two descriptions. Our common sense does have this ability, though when two people cannot understand each other, it is because no such function "fa of f-inverse-b" has so far been found. Philosophically, the importance of the representation-transformation-invariance structure lies in the conceptual complexity of the general structure and not in the details of the various elements. It is the adoption of something like it instead of the simplistic structure of the given and the conventional that differentiates common sense from phenomenalism, metaphysical realism, and conventionism. I hadn't even known that there was a doctrine called "conventionism". She's saying that these other theories just don't have enough conceptual complexity. But common sense does! And her goal is to explain how common sense actually works. More about conventionism coming up. [The paragraph continues] The conceptual structure points out the possibilities of various representations and transformations but neither prescribes the procedure rules for formulating them nor guarantees they can be successfully formulated. In mathematical physics, the representations are rigorous and the transformations explicitly performed. In our everyday thinking, the representations are sloppy and often defy exact transformations. However, this does not warrant a lapse to conventionism, which denies the general idea of transformations because specific transformations fail. [I have to take her word on this; I don't know anything about "conventionism".] On the contrary, the imperfection of specific representations makes the general conceptual complexity more important, for it alone allows the thoughts of approximations, idealizations, and improvements in objective knowledge. The representations may be partial in the sense that they characterize only one aspect of the objective state. For instance, the momentum representation does not include the spin of an electron. Representations of different aspects cannot be connected by transformations. Einstein was dissatisfied with special relativity, saying "what has nature to do with our reference frame?". He expanded the theoretical framework so that more representations are included and connected in general relativity.... The world of our daily activity is much more complicated than the world of basic physics. Often various "world constructions" highlight various aspects and are therefore not mutually translatable. They should not distract from the objectivity of knowledge in general, for the important idea is the recognition that they are representations, and representations can be partial. Conclusion: By "The object is not a transcendent reality but is immanent in experiences" what is meant is that for the ordinary object, empirical object, the (our) topic of knowledge. The rest of this had to do with "object" in the narrower sense, a piece of Kant's view, evidently. My favorite line in the book is "I have never seen a sense impression in my life". In other words, we see objects; we *perceive* (I suppose) sense impressions. So the realism of "I see a car coming towards me" is supported, and other theories that might tempt one to say (when speaking precisely) "I see the sense impression of a car coming towards me" are denigrated. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 18 17:53:25 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:53:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Contrary Messages about European Economy Message-ID: <1e2801c7c964$f3014dd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> The tail end of an article about Britain expelling four Russian diplomats http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2127731,00.html ends with these words: Despite serious political differences between EU member states and Russia, trade and investment are at an all-time high. The EU industry commissioner, G?nter Verheugen, told reporters after talks in Moscow that increasing numbers of investors from EU countries were putting their money into Russia. "The reality today is a little bit paradoxical," said Mr Verheugen, who is also an EU vice-president. "Economic cooperation is really booming ... but we have some political irritants, to say the least." On the other hand, a very large Swedish study compares the economies of Europe with those of the American states, much to the disadvantage of the former: http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf "PREFACE "IF THE EU WERE A PART of the United States of America, would it belong to the richest or the poorest group of states? "At the beginning of the 1990s, there was no need to ask. Europe's economic future was a subject of growing optimism. Productivity growth had for some decades been higher than in other countries of similar standing, and that growth was now going to be hugely accelerated by the elimination of trade barriers and the closer economic integration resulting from the Single Market. "The EU as an institution was - and was undoubtedly seen as - a vehicle for growth and economic liberalisation. In other words, the EU was able to do what politicians in several member countries had wished for but had failed to achieve: to increase economic openness, to strengthen the process of competition, and harness the political process behind a liberal reform agenda. "Today, the perspectives on the EU, and the outlook on its future, are radically different. Economic growth during the 1990s never became what many had wished for. Some countries performed reasonably well, most notably Ireland, but on the whole the EU was lagging far behind other countries during the whole decade. Productivity growth decreased and by mid-decade the EU was running behind the US in this respect. The process of convergence in productivity, a much talked-about process since the 1970s, had once again become a process of divergence. "The role, and status, of the EU in the economic reform process has also changed. Instead of a clear focus on economic reforms and growth, the EU (the Commission as well as the Council) has concentrated its ambitions on other political objectives. Hence, the EU no longer is - or is seen as - the great economic liberator of Europe. It is generally not performing as a vehicle for reforms, nor as leverage for policies that are needed but impossible to accomplish in the national political arenas. "Is it possible to break the spell of economic stagnation in Europe? Yes, undoubtedly. But, alas, it seems highly improbable. The member countries have agreed on a relatively far-reaching reform agenda in the Lisbon accord (yes, in the modern European context it is far-reaching). But the agenda lacks impetus. Not to say a true awareness of the need of reforms. Worse still, many European politicians and opinion-formers seem totally unaware of the lagging performance of the EU economies and that a few percentage units lower growth will affect their welfare in comparison with other economies. "Such is the background to this study on the differences in growth and welfare between Europe and the US. Too many politicians, policy-makers, and voters are continuing their long vacation from reality. On the one hand, they accept, or in some cases even prefer, a substantially lower growth than in the US. On the other hand, they still want us to enjoy the same luxuries and be able to afford the same welfare as Americans can. Needless to say, that is not possible. But the real political problem is that lower welfare standards - as with inequality in general - are a relative measure for most people. They are always viewed by comparison with others, and rarely in absolute terms. People would rather weep in the backseat of a new Mercedes than in the backseat of a second-hand Volkswagen. "This study is based on a widely acclaimed and thought-provoking book - Sweden versus the US - that was published earlier this year in Swedish by the same authors - Dr. Fredrik Bergstr?m, President of The Swedish Research Institute of Trade, and Mr. Robert Gidehag, formerly the Chief Economist of the same institute, and now President of the Swedish Taxpayers' Association. The study presents important perspectives on European growth and welfare. Its highlight is the benchmark of EU member states and regions to US states. The disturbing result of that benchmark should put it at the top of the agenda for Europe's future. Fredrik Erixon Chief Economist, Timbro" Of course, for many historical reasons the Americans had or still have many advantages in setting up shop on a relatively unihabited continent (after smallpox and other diseases did their work). On the other hand, America purportedly has a number of economic freedoms yet to be attained by the Europeans, though I suppose that the creation of the EU was a good start. But, as in the preface above, the authors are critical. The charts in the PDF file are fascinating. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 18 17:56:49 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:56:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) References: <200707181329.l6IDTlEe044747@mail0.rawbw.com> Message-ID: <1e2c01c7c965$a9380850$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike writes >> ... For example, it would >> be rather swell if I lost all of today's >> memories between 3pm and 6pm :-) >> Lee > > Lee you worry me with such comments. Dentistry? Appointment with goons > from the IRS? A talk with the judge regarding excessive speed on the > freeway? Nothing life threatening I hope. Nah, a little high blood pressure from some on-line altercations. Anyway, so far as I'm concerned I've solved the problem, and it's done with and over. Thanks, though. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 18 18:05:31 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:05:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Midazolam, Memory Erasure, and Identity References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0af701c7c6ad$539ae350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b2d01c7c706$f5e73510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ba601c7c79d$950d2cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0c0901c7c813$de796520$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1db901c7c8b4$bd0490d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1e2f01c7c966$5fc45ce0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 18/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> So since I believe in the information theory of death, i.e., that one is >> not dead until the information constituting one is thoroughly and >> irretrievably destroyed, I am forced to regard any surviving sufficiently >> close copy of me to be sufficient for my survival. > > What this discussion about the definition of "death" reminds me of is > attempts to define "good" and G.E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy. > > It is possible to define death in a particular way, for example > Heartland's definition of cessation (even if temporary) of brain > processes, or the above definition of information loss, and then be > perfectly logical and scientific about determining whether death has > occurred according to that definition. But then, why define it that > way? Yes. > In the end, you know what it is to be alive every day rather than dead > (as you know what is good rather than bad) and then you try to come up > with a definition that is consistent with this knowledge; in other > words, you have an operational definition in mind and try to come up > with an intrinsic definition. Agreed. > You can get this wrong if it turns out > that the definition is not in keeping with your intuition in a > particular case, since that was the purpose of the definition in the > first place. For example, I would say the brain process cessation > definition is wrong because it is entirely consistent to suppose that > this phenomenon might have been happening every moment of what you > would otherwise have thought was ordinary life, and certainly not > repeated death. > > The idea that the ultimate standard against which a definition of > death is to be measured is not some precise and unequivocal test but a > feeling or a way of thinking makes questions about personal identity > in a way akin to questions about ethics or aesthetics. I'd prefer it > if this were not so, but I don't see a way around it. Maybe you're right. Myself, I wonder if the behavior that I expect people would exhibit in thought experiment scenarios is accurate. How, for example, would they really respond to proof that they were "merely a copy"? Would two copies automatically fear each other and try to exploit each other as depicted in the recent movie "The Prestige"? (I very much doubt it.) What is different about this philosophical dilemma and the traditional ones, like the one concerning the is/ought distinction, is that conditions may rapily change from what they are now: we may, before too many more decades, find it quite possible to have copies (especially in uploading scenarios). It'll be interesting to see what happens, if you and I can make it that far into the future. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 18 20:46:02 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:46:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "The Progressive Apocalypse and Other Futurismic Delights" Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070718154431.021fc1e0@satx.rr.com> Cory Doctorow: The Progressive Apocalypse and Other Futurismic Delights [with a variety of comments now posted, including a lengthy one from me; everyone can play!] From emohamad at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 00:08:49 2007 From: emohamad at gmail.com (Elaa Mohamad) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:08:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] What surveillance solution is best - Orwellian, David Brin's, or ...? Message-ID: <24f36f410707181708w48635f75p89139f11c6914e79@mail.gmail.com> Sorry for bringing up an old topic, but I am sure Eugen Leitl will be ecstatic about this. I was applying for my UK visa yesterday and burst out laughing when I read: "Biometric data collection for visa applicants (15/03/07) By the end of 2007 all applicants, with few exceptions (Heads of State for example), *will be required to supply 10 digit fingerscans and a digital photograph when applying for a **UK** visa.* Why? We are not alone in doing this. Biometrics are becoming the industry standard for identity management. Very soon, *we will be able to withdraw money from our bank accounts using fingerscans or iris scans. Increasingly, all passports will have a unique biometric identifier, whether this is fingerscans or an iris scan or a digital photograph. All EU countries are introducing fingerscan biometrics into their visas. * Biometrics is the next natural step in a progression of identifiers from signatures to photographs." So I guess, here is the answer to your question: Eugen Leitl wrote: >Really? Some database somewhere "in the system" has my biometrics? >I don't think so; and I'd like to keep it that way. Believe me, I'd like to keep it that way as well. But I also need to go to the UK. Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Jul 19 00:17:50 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:17:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Resend: "The Empirical Object" by Dr. Sunny Auyang Message-ID: <1e7001c7c99a$adec2770$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> I apologize for the re-send, but it was brought to my attention that for many people there was a problem with the linebreaks in what was posted. This is an excerpt from Sunny Auyang's book, "How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?". The section is "The Empirical Object" and begins on p.99. One purpose served here is that anyone curious about the book can see a sample page of her writing, (which I happen to consider to be extraordinarily clear, although difficult to get through because of the difficulty of the material). I will intersperse my own comments and summary from time to time. _______________________________ "The Empirical Object" (by Sunny Auyang) "Object" is used in two senses in the following. The narrower sense is the *physical object* whose state is represented by x in Fig. 5.1. [in a typical differential geometry type diagram, where x is a point in an abstract manifold]. The broader sense is the *empirical object*, the topic of knowledge. "Empirical" here includes only the conceptual aspect of experiences, which are recognized as a kind of representation; it does not include the sensual aspect, which was considered in section 12. An empirical object is an object-variously-representable-but- independent-of-representations. The concept of empirical objects is represented by the full structure in Fig. 5.1; it includes the physical object as a conceptual element. Okay, the most of this may not be making much sense to you if you have not been reading the whole book. It should become clearer, however: The introduction of the physical object whose state is x not only adds an element in our conceptual structure; it enriches the elements discussed earlier. For the first time [in the book], the idea of representation *of* something is made explicit. The physical object reinforces the common-sense notion of things that are independent of our representations. On the other hand, since representations are associated with observations of things, the idea of phenomena becomes more weighty. The multiplicity of representations of the same object forces us to acknowledge the idiosyncrasies of particular representations; hence it clarifies the meaning of conventionality. Here x is an element of a "manifold", which in this case is an abstract state space of all the *possible* states that the thing (ordinary object) could be in. In differential geometry, x is a point in the manifold M introduces the possibility of "coordinate functions". So picture M as a two or three dimensional space ---but as yet without dimensions--- residing "above" one or more coordinate spaces (that is, ones composed of ordinary Euclidean coordinate systems. The functions fa and fb are arrows from x into these coordinate patches. ("Patch" is really the technical term for the one or more N-dimensional coordinate spaces just described.) Again, all this is standard differential geometry (of manifolds). But I can hardly do justice to dozens of preceding pages of the book which might make what you are reading more understandable. Since the object x is categorically different from any of its representations, the mean of [the coordinate function a] is no longer unanalyzable. It is now coordinates-of-x equals fa(x), reading "the value coordinate- of-x for the property type fa", the predicate coordinates-of-x of x in the representation fa(M)", or "the appearance of the coordinates-of-x from the perspective fa(M)" Various representations can be drastically different, but they represent the same object. The same electromagnetic configuration that is a mess in the Cartesian coordinates can become simplicity itself when represented in the spherical coordinates. However, the two representations are equivalent. Okay, here is what this is all about. There are real things out there ("ding-an-sich") which in scientific theories may be represented by a state space. That is, each of the supposed states of the object is a point in the manifold representation (or theory, or picture). x is a point in the state space. So we cannot quite say that "x *is* the object", else we run afoul of all the problems Korzybski warned about when we use the word "is". In a literal sense, x only represents a physical object in a particular state. In your physical theory. This really does soon get back to people and how people understand the universe, hang tight! fa (the function f-sub-a describes x in one coordinate system, say rectangular) and fb (another function that takes the point x into a coordinate space) are further representations of x, but this time in ordinary coordinate systems. Sadly, I cannot find any good pictures on the web to illustrate this, but this here isn't too awful: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold, but you don't see the arrow functions fa and fb from x into ordinary coordinate systems. The point is, like she says, that various representations of the same object can be quite different. [The last heavy-duty math paragraph]. Since fa and fb are imbedded in the meaning of coordinate- function-a-of-x and coordinate-function-b-of-x, the transformation fb of the inverse of fa connects the two representations in a necessary way dictated by the object x. fb of f-inverse-b is a composite map. It not only pairs the two predicates a-coordinates-of-x and b-coordinates- of-x, it identifies them as representations of the *same* object x, to which it refers via the individual maps f-inverse-a and fb. Since fb of f-inverse-a always points to an object x, the representations they connect not only enjoy intersubjective agreement; they are also objectively valid. To use Kant's words, the representations are no longer connected merely by habit; they are united *in the object*. I regret very much not being able to use the real mathsymbols in this medium, and I also regret that I could not find on the web a good picture of an "atlas" with its coordinate functions that appears in dozens of books. In fact, Auyang's diagrams are excellent, but rather standard. The next (math-free) paragraphs make this clearer, I hope. The objective state x is called coordinate-free or representation-free. This is not an arbitrary designation but an active negative concept that signifies a *lack* of representation. The invariant x explicitly articulates the commonsense notion that physical objects are independent of our conventions and free from the arbitrariness of our perceptual conditions. A negation is a distinction between what is and what is not; for instance, what is given and what is not, what is conventional and what is not. A theory must have certain minimum conceptual complexity to internalize a distinction. The negativity, being free from or independent of, drives a wedge between the physical state and its representations, which become truly significant in the larger conceptual framework. Since modern physical theories have internalized the distinction signifying detachment, they themselves can assert objectivity for their objective statements, a task of which older theories are incapable. The repressentation-transformation-invariance structure can also represent momentary perceptual experiences. There is a whole previous section in the book about the "representation-transformation-invariance" structure. It's quite interesting and important, but basically it's really nothing more than this same diagram that shows a Manifold, and a couple of coordinate functions that take points, or a typical point x, in the manifold to coordinate spaces. The paragraph continues The content of an experience is represented by the coordinates of [x in the a or b Euclidean space], for observations are always specific. The conceptual complexity of the equation that equates the a-coordinates-of-x to the value of the function fa(x) implies that we directly access the object x in our experiences and do not indirectly infer it from some given sense impressions. The object is not a transcendent reality but is immanent in experiences. Looking at the other side of the coin, the phenomenon "coordinates-of-x" is not a semblance of mere appearance that stands for something else; it is what the object shows itself in itself. The idiosyncrasy in coordinates-of-x is ascribed to the conditions of experience. The conceptual complexity implies that our experiential content goes beyond mere sensory stimulation. When we observe a particular representation coordinates-of-x, we simultaneously observe [or are aware of] the invariance-under-transformations-of-representations [her hyphenated words, not mine]. Suppose x represents a round table and [the a-coordinates of x and the b-coordinates of x] various elliptical profiles. When we see the table from an angle, we see *in* the particular profile its invariance when seen from alternative angles. This is how we distinguish a round table from an ellipse. Understand what she's saying here? There is a real table out there, and the whole "categorical framework" we use when applying common sense allows us to understand that the mere appearances (depending on angle) are not to be confused with the thing-in-itself. The appearances are like coordinates, or the values of coordinate functions taking points in the state space of the object (table) to appearances. The categorical framework of objects is a unitary whole. The physical object x is neither posited in advance nor constructed out of its representations afterwards. It is defined simultaneously and encoded in all its representations in the integral structure. Neither the representation-free x nor the representation a-coordinates-of-x alone is sufficient to characterize the primitive unit of empirical knowledge. Both and their interrelation are required; x realizes the general conditions for the possibility of objects *and the coordinates the general conditions for the possibility of experiences of objects*.The two arise together in objective knowledge, as Kant argued. Representation-transformation-invariance is an integral structure that realizes the general concept of empirical objects in physical theories. Since the concept of empirical objects has enough complexity to endow the content of experiences with meaning beyond what meets the eye, it can account for doubts, errors, illusions, and partial knowledge. There are enough elements in the categorical structure so that some can be left blank without a total collapse of comprehension. We may know a-coordinates-of-x but not b-coordinates-of-x, or we may know both but not the transformation relating them. A nice example she gave earlier is that of a desk. "Imagine," she wrote on page 92, "two persons seeing something. One says it is a sea of electrons in an ionic lattice. The other says "What? It's a plain old metal desk," and mutters, "crazy physicist". So there is this same object x (or represented by x in the state space) and two different coordinate functions on x. What is important is that in order to be able to understand each other, we require fa of f-inverse-b, or in other words, a way of connecting the two descriptions. Our common sense does have this ability, though when two people cannot understand each other, it is because no such function "fa of f-inverse-b" has so far been found. Philosophically, the importance of the representation- transformation-invariance structure lies in the conceptual complexity of the general structure and not in the details of the various elements. It is the adoption of something like it instead of the simplistic structure of the given and the conventional that differentiates common sense from phenomenalism, metaphysical realism, and conventionism. I hadn't even known that there was a doctrine called "conventionism". She's saying that these other theories just don't have enough conceptual complexity. But common sense does! And her goal is to explain how common sense actually works. More about conventionism coming up. [The paragraph continues] The conceptual structure points out the possibilities of various representations and transformations but neither prescribes the procedure rules for formulating them nor guarantees they can be successfully formulated. In mathematical physics, the representations are rigorous and the transformations explicitly performed. In our everyday thinking, the representations are sloppy and often defy exact transformations. However, this does not warrant a lapse to conventionism, which denies the general idea of transformations because specific transformations fail. [I have to take her word on this; I don't know anything about "conventionism".] On the contrary, the imperfection of specific representations makes the general conceptual complexity more important, for it alone allows the thoughts of approximations, idealizations, and improvements in objective knowledge. The representations may be partial in the sense that they characterize only one aspect of the objective state. For instance, the momentum representation does not include the spin of an electron. Representations of different aspects cannot be connected by transformations. Einstein was dissatisfied with special relativity, saying "what has nature to do with our reference frame?". He expanded the theoretical framework so that more representations are included and connected in general relativity.... The world of our daily activity is much more complicated than the world of basic physics. Often various "world constructions" highlight various aspects and are therefore not mutually translatable. They should not distract from the objectivity of knowledge in general, for the important idea is the recognition that they are representations, and representations can be partial. _______________________________ Conclusion: By "The object is not a transcendent reality but is immanent in experiences" what is meant is that for the ordinary object, empirical object, the (our) topic of knowledge. The rest of this had to do with "object" in the narrower sense, a piece of Kant's view, evidently. My favorite line in the book is "I have never seen a sense impression in my life". In other words, we see objects; we *perceive* (I suppose) sense impressions. So the realism of "I see a car coming towards me" is supported, and other theories that might tempt one to say (when speaking precisely) "I see the sense impression of a car coming towards me" are denigrated. Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Jul 19 02:16:40 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:16:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Resend: "The Empirical Object" by Dr. Sunny Auyang In-Reply-To: <1e7001c7c99a$adec2770$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1e7001c7c99a$adec2770$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 7/18/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > My favorite line in the book is "I have never > seen a sense impression in my life". In other > words, we see objects; we *perceive* > (I suppose) sense impressions. So the > realism of "I see a car coming towards me" > is supported, and other theories that might > tempt one to say (when speaking precisely) > "I see the sense impression of a car coming > towards me" are denigrated. Them's fancy words, but your concluding paragraph shows that you don't quite get it. The author's statement, "I have never seen a sense impression in my life", is an elegant allusion to the core of the problem. Elegant, perfect, right-on. She highlights the philosophical problem of the Cartesian Self, the mind's "I", the homunculous, the "hard problem of consciousness", qualia, and such related hoohaw. For you to say, "we perceive (I suppose) sense impressions", is to continue to make the core mistake of assuming that sense impressions are somehow delivered to a perceiver. Rather, the sensory apparatus of the observer interacts with its local "reality" and the observer system perceives. "Sense impressions" are meaningless (can't be modeled) when you insist that they must then be perceived. Tell me, Human, what is this perceiver you speak of, as if somehow distinct within the observing system? - Jef P.S. I did try to ignore this one, but it was so over the top that I went over with it. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Jul 19 03:55:36 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:55:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > I've changed my view on survival through copies which are not up to > date, mostly through discussions with you. I originally thought that > it was obviously false, but now I see it as presenting a conundrum: > > (a) Death is bad because if I die, I can anticipate no further experiences. Check. > (b) However, partial memory loss through drugs like midazolam also > results in a state of mind from which I can anticipate no further > experiences, and that doesn't seem so bad. Check. (All very well put, it seems to me.) > (c) Therefore *either* death is not so bad *or* there is something > else about death, not present in the memory loss example, which makes > it bad. Check. > (d) The difference between what we normally think of as death and the > memory loss example is that in the latter someone with some of my past > experiences will be able to anticipate future experiences, even though > I-now won't. Yes, that seems to be the difference. So the entire question now appears to revolve around whether the "someone with some of my past experience" should be regarded as the same person as one. And yes, the instance you call "I-now" will have, say, no further experience. > (e) Therefore, maybe death is not bad if someone with some of my past > experiences is left behind. Doctors who apply midazolam to their patients probably do not look upon their intoxicated patients (as you sort of called them) as though these people were going to perish. And to speak of just plain old hypothetical memory erasure makes the arguments crisper. A wife who loves her husband but realizes that her husband is to lose all of today's memories is probably far less concerned than she would be if he were to break an arm. She can't help but think that "he'll be just fine" tomorrow, and that he'll be the same person as today. We could *suppose* that she is correct. But all this is rife with circular argumentation, I'm aware. Here in (e) of course you're using a meaning of "death" that is at odds with the one I use. But from your point of view, yes, I guess I can't argue with your logic. > (f) But to change my original view to the above seems hardly easier > than deciding that death with no copies left behind is not bad. Well, *everyone* is alarmed at the thought of the patient, or the husband, or the subject himself not being around any long. I guess the whole question is still, "Should one be alarmed or at all worried if some memory of the past few minutes or past few hours is going to be erased." > You see, there are several consistent positions possible, and which > one I choose depends on psychological factors, not on science or > logic. I suppose so, since I can't fault your logic. It still seems to me that there is a kind of scientific, detached, analytical, third-person view that strongly suggests that the ensemble of physical Lee Corbin's who could awake in my bed tomorrow and still be me is very large. A zillion things, from the gravitational attraction of passing trucks to whether an old friend rings me up on the telephone tonight all vastly change the physical state of the person who awakes in my bed tomorrow. But within a very large range, we consider them all to be me. But here I am saying nothing more, I suppose, than that this detached physical viewpoint is the "similarity" viewpoint. >> (And I know from his "Luckiest Man in the Universe" scenario, in which >> Francis Bacon by sheer luck is brought back to life by a random >> collision of molecules---and argued by Max to be just as legitimate >> a copy of Bacon as was the original---is bolstered by quite a few >> arguments in his thesis. Anyway, while it may be less than a self- >> inflicted brainwashing, it is more than just my opinion. >> >> However, in the same article Ben Goertzel [blast it, I misspelled his name last night] >> defends what I call the >> "path conception of identity", in which the final *state* is not >> what is important, and is not evaluation, but the *path* by which >> the state is reached. A good friend of mine endorses this path- >> view of identity. Perhaps you'd find it appealing too. > > I think Bacon would still be the Bacon he was at the time of which the > copy is a representation, but not the Bacon he became after that (that > is, even if the copy was made aeons after all original Bacons were > gone, and regardless of how the copy was made). I would agree if he changed greatly later on in life. For example, if he became quite old and senile, then I'd go along with him not being the same person. > That's the straightforward case, and I'd go as far as saying > that I don't see how it could logically be otherwise, without > allowing that Bacon might have been a different person from > day to day even before his death in 1626. As you know, the logic I endorse is that of something gradually changing from one fuzzy category into another. A mountain is different from a molehill, but the latter can be slowly changed into the former by infinitesimal degrees. > (Well, he was strictly speaking changing from moment to > moment, but he *felt* he was the same person, and that's > what matters in this context.) But then there is the case of the crackpot who believes he is Napoleon. But if you mean by "*felt*" that he really did have the same thoughts, memories, and emotions that Napoleon had, then naturally it would be isomorphic to the Francis Bacon case. > Could you explain the path identity concept further, or give me a > reference I can look up? I will post something on it later. Lee From nanogirl at halcyon.com Thu Jul 19 03:45:45 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:45:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Reverie - new images Message-ID: <008801c7c9b7$b1824050$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello, I have created two new images called "Reverie" - fractals and lady metallic oh my! You can take a look at them by visiting: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/reverie.htm As always, I love to hear your thoughts on my artwork at my arts and animation blog. To comment on this work visit: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/07/reverie.html Hope you like it! Best wishes, Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com Animation Blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/ Craft blog: http://nanogirlblog.blogspot.com/ Foresight Senior Associate http://www.foresight.org Nanotechnology Advisor Extropy Institute http://www.extropy.org Email: nanogirl at halcyon.com "Nanotechnology: Solutions for the future." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Jul 19 05:19:50 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:19:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170725ic5dabfau382ac4db7fe9d5fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1eab01c7c9c4$b8c798d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike wrote > On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > It might be easier to discard the notion of surviveability, or, as you > > suggest, to eliminate the desire to survive, but I don't want to do > > that! No, no no! :-) Reasonable or not, "being alive is better > > than being dead, all other things equal" is something pretty hard- > > wired in me, at least for now. > > so hardwired that you're redefining "alive" versus "dead" to > make that hardwiring easier to manage. Yes, I have equated "being alive" with "surviving". I don't recall the exact reasons why in these discussions *survival* is often a more useful concept. I'm afraid I don't see your point here, so far. > I think much of the difficulty of drawing people into these discussions > is convincing them to release their own ancient hardwiring about identity. Hmm, "drawing them in" doesn't seem to be the difficulty! :-) But yes, it's like you say with regard to each of us having his or her own preconceived and rather fixed intuitions regarding whether we'd survive some given scenario or not. Or whether, for another example, to teleport or not, given that teleportation would disassemble one, transmit the information to another point in space, and then reconstitute one from different atoms. > If you were to talk about the issues facing the first AI that > wakes up and convincingly explains itself to be conscious > of its own identity - I don't think you'd have the human > identity bias to relinquish. That sounds right. In fact, the general trend, it seems to me, has been too much anthropomorphising: I don't think that we can convincingly say what attitude such an awakening AI would have. Clearly it would depend a great deal on whatever goal structure it had (as has been explored on SL4 and here at great length). > Once you lead down that road, it's much easier to introduce > mind uploading and arrive at the same conclusions with > (possibly) fewer hangups. You mean to say that upon hearing an AI's account, we'd be in a better position to have our own opinions as to what constitutes surviving? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Jul 19 05:39:15 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:39:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Affecting Past Experience (was The Reality of Categories) References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0ac501c7c69d$ec354e30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis wrote (Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:10 AM) > In a block universe, there are my previous selves and my future > selves, all doing their thing simultaneously (as it were). My past > selves are about as similar to me as my future selves at an equivalent > temporal displacement, but my future selves constitute a memory > superset of my present self while my past selves do not. Therefore, I > don't care if my past selves are wiped out by a giant > trans-block-universe-thingy whereas I do care if my future selves > suffer such a fate. Of course, the whole idea of a block universe is that by being deterministic, the whole thing exists "at once", and so it's hard to make sense of past selves being wiped out by something like a "trans-block-universe-thingy". But I believe that indeed sense *can* be made of such. Perhaps this is what you are referring to: Let's say that an uploaded entity---born, raised, and educated all in software (or I should say "coded-up, run, and having incorporated a great number of facts")---finds itself in the Newcomb's Paradox position. Then I think that there is a strong sense in which he is "free" to choose whether he actually had certain experiences, or merely had the memories added artificially. It's all deterministic, of course, but still his Newcomb choice A (as opposed to choice B) may be correlated very highly with whether he really did experience X or just suffered the memories of experiencing X to added. And by "highly correlated", I mean that a much vaster entity who designed and ran this entity arranged for the correlation to be 1. (In other words, a vastly superior entity E+ designed entity N so that N's choice---which is "free" if you ask N---will be A if and only if N did actually experience X, and will be B if not. Now this isn't so easy, since N is supposed to be the same exact entity whether or not his memories were artificial. But it could be done, so that N who chooses A (and so got the real experiences) differs only infinitesimally from N' who just got the memory enhancement. This probably makes sense only if N is systematically confronted by a whole sequence of A/B choices, and comes to learn later after each choice whether the truth was that he actually had X or actually had not experienced X.) It is easier for me to assume that X is a positive experience that N is eager to repeat, and which N hopes was a real experience and not just a memory addition. It's very much as in Total Recall, where at after the Martian adventure is over Arnold will always wonder whether it really happened or the folks at Total Recall just added in the memories. We may assume for convenience that Arnold would treasure the experience having been real (even if somehow it had no further repercussions in his life). Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 05:59:05 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:59:05 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Contrary Messages about European Economy In-Reply-To: <1e2801c7c964$f3014dd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1e2801c7c964$f3014dd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 19/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Of course, for many historical reasons the Americans had or still > have many advantages in setting up shop on a relatively unihabited > continent (after smallpox and other diseases did their work). On > the other hand, America purportedly has a number of economic > freedoms yet to be attained by the Europeans, though I suppose > that the creation of the EU was a good start. But, as in the preface > above, the authors are critical. The charts in the PDF file are > fascinating. The following charts suggest that while the US has consistently been ahead of European countries in per capita GDP, its lead hasn't changed that much since 1960: http://www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 11:13:26 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:13:26 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 19/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > (e) Therefore, maybe death is not bad if someone with some of my past > > experiences is left behind. > > Doctors who apply midazolam to their patients probably do not > look upon their intoxicated patients (as you sort of called them) > as though these people were going to perish. And to speak of > just plain old hypothetical memory erasure makes the arguments > crisper. A wife who loves her husband but realizes that her > husband is to lose all of today's memories is probably far less > concerned than she would be if he were to break an arm. > She can't help but think that "he'll be just fine" tomorrow, > and that he'll be the same person as today. We could *suppose* > that she is correct. But all this is rife with circular argumentation, > I'm aware. > > Here in (e) of course you're using a meaning of "death" that is > at odds with the one I use. But from your point of view, yes, > I guess I can't argue with your logic. I could have been more precise by using a term like quasi-death for the death of an instance, or for the death experienced through memory loss, the point being to work out whether it was this quasi-death that I feared all along when I feared death, or something else. The problem arises because it *was* this aspect of death or quasi-death (specifically, any process which would lead to my present instance anticipating no future experiences) which I was worried about. So if this fear is now seen as inconsistent, my main reason for worrying about death is gone. > > (f) But to change my original view to the above seems hardly easier > > than deciding that death with no copies left behind is not bad. > > Well, *everyone* is alarmed at the thought of the patient, or > the husband, or the subject himself not being around any long. > I guess the whole question is still, "Should one be alarmed or > at all worried if some memory of the past few minutes or past > few hours is going to be erased." > > > You see, there are several consistent positions possible, and which > > one I choose depends on psychological factors, not on science or > > logic. > > I suppose so, since I can't fault your logic. It still seems to me that > there is a kind of scientific, detached, analytical, third-person view > that strongly suggests that the ensemble of physical Lee Corbin's > who could awake in my bed tomorrow and still be me is very > large. A zillion things, from the gravitational attraction of passing > trucks to whether an old friend rings me up on the telephone > tonight all vastly change the physical state of the person who > awakes in my bed tomorrow. But within a very large range, > we consider them all to be me. But here I am saying nothing more, > I suppose, than that this detached physical viewpoint is the > "similarity" viewpoint. It is also in keeping with the "anticipation" viewpoint, since I can't anticipate the experiences of someone sufficiently dissimilar from me. > > (Well, he was strictly speaking changing from moment to > > moment, but he *felt* he was the same person, and that's > > what matters in this context.) > > But then there is the case of the crackpot who believes he > is Napoleon. But if you mean by "*felt*" that he really > did have the same thoughts, memories, and emotions that > Napoleon had, then naturally it would be isomorphic to > the Francis Bacon case. Even in the similarity criterion for identity, the important thing is that you continue feeling you are the same person. It is a necessary side-effect of having a sufficiently similar mind (memories etc.) that you will also feel you are the same person. Even mentally ill people who claim to be someone else (usually someone famous) generally remember their past, remember thinking they used to be someone else, but have a rationalisation for the factual discrepancies. Their crazy persona is continuous with their normal persona. If this were not so, then they truly *would* be a different person, and the original would be dead. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 12:05:39 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:05:39 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Affecting Past Experience (was The Reality of Categories) In-Reply-To: <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 19/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis wrote > > (Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:10 AM) > > > > In a block universe, there are my previous selves and my future > > selves, all doing their thing simultaneously (as it were). My past > > selves are about as similar to me as my future selves at an equivalent > > temporal displacement, but my future selves constitute a memory > > superset of my present self while my past selves do not. Therefore, I > > don't care if my past selves are wiped out by a giant > > trans-block-universe-thingy whereas I do care if my future selves > > suffer such a fate. > > Of course, the whole idea of a block universe is that by being > deterministic, the whole thing exists "at once", and so it's hard > to make sense of past selves being wiped out by something > like a "trans-block-universe-thingy". But I believe that indeed > sense *can* be made of such. Perhaps this is what you are > referring to: > > Let's say that an uploaded entity---born, raised, and educated > all in software (or I should say "coded-up, run, and having > incorporated a great number of facts")---finds itself in the > Newcomb's Paradox position. Then I think that there is a > strong sense in which he is "free" to choose whether he > actually had certain experiences, or merely had the memories > added artificially. > > It's all deterministic, of course, but still his Newcomb choice > A (as opposed to choice B) may be correlated very highly > with whether he really did experience X or just suffered the > memories of experiencing X to added. And by "highly > correlated", I mean that a much vaster entity who designed > and ran this entity arranged for the correlation to be 1. > > (In other words, a vastly superior entity E+ designed entity > N so that N's choice---which is "free" if you ask N---will > be A if and only if N did actually experience X, and will be > B if not. Now this isn't so easy, since N is supposed to > be the same exact entity whether or not his memories were > artificial. But it could be done, so that N who chooses A > (and so got the real experiences) differs only infinitesimally > from N' who just got the memory enhancement. This > probably makes sense only if N is systematically confronted > by a whole sequence of A/B choices, and comes to learn > later after each choice whether the truth was that he actually > had X or actually had not experienced X.) > > It is easier for me to assume that X is a positive experience > that N is eager to repeat, and which N hopes was a real > experience and not just a memory addition. It's very much > as in Total Recall, where at after the Martian adventure is > over Arnold will always wonder whether it really happened > or the folks at Total Recall just added in the memories. We > may assume for convenience that Arnold would treasure > the experience having been real (even if somehow it had no > further repercussions in his life). This would be a very artificial situation, as in almost every case there would be no impact on a present subject whether his past was real or imagined. My original experiment could conceivably be modelled without the need for godlike powers. Suppose I am informed that I am living in a computer simulation of a special kind. My whole life from birth to death has been determined, and is being run in real time in day long sections simultaneously on geographically separated computers, one computer for each day of my life, so that the whole thing is over and done with in a single day in the real world. I am also aware that these computers are the focus of a bombing campaign by forces who believe sentient software is blasphemous. Although it's beyond my control, I fervently hope that the terrorists will not destroy the computers running days in my subjective future, but I don't really care if they destroy computers running days in my subjective past. In fact, I would prefer that all my past days be destroyed if it could save one future day, even though that way the total runtime of all instances of me is reduced. -- Stathis Papaioannou From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 16:10:34 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:10:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <1eab01c7c9c4$b8c798d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170725ic5dabfau382ac4db7fe9d5fd@mail.gmail.com> <1eab01c7c9c4$b8c798d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240707190910n32642a29lcc8153dfe7e8f87e@mail.gmail.com> On 7/19/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Once you lead down that road, it's much easier to introduce > > mind uploading and arrive at the same conclusions with > > (possibly) fewer hangups. > > You mean to say that upon hearing an AI's account, we'd > be in a better position to have our own opinions as to what > constitutes surviving? > I meant that the anthropomorphizing maybe could be sidestepped if people made clear(er) assertions about a non-human AI. Once their position is established, the introduction of an previously meat-based human now in a uploaded state should be little/no different than they claimed of the AI. I was thinking about your Anticipation Dilemma. If you should be eagerly anticipating the dinner you ate last night because some earlier point-in-time version of yourself has not yet eaten it and you must embrace the anticipation of all your selves. I facetiously suggested your acceptable exchange rate of $5M per week of memory erasure should have a comparable rate for suppression of future experience. Your answer was funny, but I don't follow logically. If you are willing to lose access to the runtime of an arbitrary week from your past and you identify with earlier point-in-time selves, are you allowing them to be erased because your "now" awareness has deemed them less valuable than the unknown future moments you have not yet experienced? Is the exchange fixed for any arbitrary week, or only for the immediately past week? Does the time have to be contiguous? Could we erase 1 week's worth of memory from a disconnected set of 1 hour intervals? (memory/life edit reminds me of some movies "Paycheck", "Click", "50 First Dates") Suppose far future you has rated the next two weeks so uneventfully boring that they should be sold. Your "Now" self is given the choice of selling either your next two weeks (based on your future self's suggestion that they're for sale) or any two weeks from your farther past. If your future self has not given you an alternate period to choose from, do you vote with them on losing the next two weeks of your future or select a past period from on own? (with the possibility that future self either would not have selected that period for sale, or had already lost that time because of your choice and therefor did not have it available anyway) I'm not necessarily making a point or trying to trap anyone, I was just thinking about this and wonder what is your opinion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 19 19:26:07 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:26:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Resend: "The Empirical Object" by Dr. Sunny Auyang In-Reply-To: References: <1e7001c7c99a$adec2770$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Good luck with that book, Lee. I'll be expecting a full report when you're finished. :-) In the meantime, I hope you'll pay no attention to those here with the hubris to tell you that you don't get it. -gts From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 19 21:19:56 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Post-Mortal Syndrome In-Reply-To: <200707152150.l6FLooNF010948@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <425105.63878.qm@web35604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Spike wrote: In any story, one has one's favorite personalities. It be cool to be able to filter a story, to follow the adventures of one or two characters. We could have the software keep track of what material one has already read, then keep offering more detail on one's chosen characters, or go on to others at will. Then reading a novel becomes more like doing a modern google search, nibbling at one's areas of interest but not trying to actually absorb the entire contents of the internet. Such a format requires soft copy and specialized software. > Spike, I think you are really on to something! But I think you may still be at least a few years ahead of your time. I was recently at my local Borders bookseller and I noticed a thick tome they were pushing for twentysomething women which had you making choices "Choose your own Adventure-style (remember those?)" and so the main character might wind up divorced, happily-married, rich, homeless, dead- it was all up to your choices. But I prefer the more complex and enriched concept you have proposed. I have the tendancy with a novel to read just those parts which include characters which engage me. I did this with David Brin's "Uplift War" because the "evil" aliens appealed to me much more than the human characters. And I partially read Star Wars novels (please don't hit me!)- but just the parts with the Sith baddies. John Grigg : ) --------------------------------- Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Jul 19 22:51:17 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:51:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] omd! the bibble was right! Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070719174842.02353d78@satx.rr.com> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1478 but only 1/2 right--there were *2* Floods! I reckon the first one took out the last of the intelligent dinosaurs (well, forced them to flee in their flying saucers, anyway). From neptune at superlink.net Fri Jul 20 00:08:10 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:08:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] omd! the bibble was right! References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070719174842.02353d78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003f01c7ca62$0f617740$20893cd1@pavilion> On Thursday, July 19, 2007 6:51 PM Damien Broderick thespike at satx.rr.com > http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1478 > > but only 1/2 right--there were *2* Floods! I reckon the first one > took out the last of the intelligent dinosaurs (well, forced them to > flee in their flying saucers, anyway). Well, more than that. Just 2 for this specific lake. Also, here, if one is going to -- admittedly, with tongue in cheek -- say the Bible is right, then so is the Gilgamesh epic. Regards, Dan From scerir at libero.it Fri Jul 20 06:32:51 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:32:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Psi quantum observation experiment References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070628175620.022251d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <008501c7ca97$cca31220$8a961f97@archimede> It is not really a psi-quantum observation exp., rather it seems to be an anthropic-postselection model, or somehing like that :-) We propose an experiment which consists of pulling a card and use it to decide restrictions on the running of L.H.C. at CERN, such as luminosity, beam energy, or total shut down. The purpose of such an experiment is to look for influence from the future, backward causation. Since L.H.C. shall produce particles of a mathematically new type of fundamental scalars, i.e. the Higgs particles, there is potentially a chance to find hitherto unseen effects such as influence going from future to past, which we suggest in the present paper. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.1919 s. See also the good old Cramer here http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274531.aspx From estropico at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 13:53:26 2007 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:53:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia's July event: How to win friends and influence politicians. Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90707200653q6a0693cav97f294728f72e6a2@mail.gmail.com> ExtroBritannia's July event: How to win friends and influence politicians. Saturday the 28th of July, 2pm, at Conway Hall (Artists' Room), in Holborn, London. Everyone welcome. What would it mean if mainstream UK political parties absorbed Transhumanist ideas into their values and policy? What if dogmatic inhibition of Transhumanist developments could be transformed into a rational, national and international reach for technological salvation? Imagine what might be achieved in just one decade with Apollo Project-scale, collaborative, multi-national public funding and regulatory reform. Love it or loathe it, politics drives our national agenda, and Darren Reynolds wants to tell us how to get into the driver's seat. Darren Reynolds is a local government councillor, approved Parliamentary candidate and party conference insider for a mainstream UK political party. He's also one of the original contributors to the Transhumanist Declaration and a sustaining member of the World Transhumanist Association. We will be at the Penderel's Oak (see below for the address) from 12.30 for lunch and will move to Conway Hall at 2pm. We'll be back at the Penderel's post-event for drinks and discussion at approx. 5pm. Feel free to show up at any stage. If it's your first time at an ExtroBritannia event, look out for a copy of Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" at our table. CONWAY HALL 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL tel 020 7242 8032 www.conwayhall.org.uk Nearest tube: Holborn The Penderel's Oak 283-288 High Holborn London WC1V 7HJ Tel: 0207 242 5669 Nearest tube: Holborn http://extrobritannia.blogspot.com/ From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Jul 20 21:52:38 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:52:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A Cyborg or a transhuman ? Message-ID: <380-220077520215238191@M2W030.mail2web.com> Can anyone answer the million dollar question: What is the difference between a cyborg and a transhum? -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange From joseph at josephbloch.com Fri Jul 20 22:21:21 2007 From: joseph at josephbloch.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:21:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A Cyborg or a transhuman ? In-Reply-To: <380-220077520215238191@M2W030.mail2web.com> References: <380-220077520215238191@M2W030.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <006a01c7cb1c$4dcc83c0$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of nvitamore at austin.rr.com > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 5:53 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] A Cyborg or a transhuman ? > > Can anyone answer the million dollar question: > > What is the difference between a cyborg and a transhum? Cyborgs combine non-biological elements with their biological selves. Transhumans (or, perhaps more properly, posthumans) could eliminate the need for a biological component altogether. Strictly speaking, cyborgs do not need to exceed human norms. As Frank Forman rightly points out, a cochlear implant counts as a "cyborgization", and yet it does not (yet, anyway) provide hearing in a range and sophistication superior to normal human hearing. By definition, transhumans and posthumans seek or have succeeded in overcoming human limitations. Also, it is entirely possible that transhuman or posthuman status could be accomplished by genetic engineering or even pharmacological intervention, bypassing the need for non-biological enhancements altogether. I would say that it's possible but by no means required, for cyborgs to be transhumans and vice versa. Joseph http://www.josephbloch.com From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Jul 20 22:33:59 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:33:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Cyborg or a transhuman ? In-Reply-To: References: <380-220077520215238191@M2W030.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 7/20/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > A cyborg, or cybernetic organism, is an organism composed of > integrated artificial and natural systems. So present-day, low-level > cyborgs include humans with cochlear implants, hearing aids, cardiac > or neural pacemakers, eyeglasses, etc. I suppose I should clarify that I mean "integrated" in the sense of functionally integrated with the organism rather than necessarily physically integrated. This may be objectionable to those who would consider "fixed" or "permanent" physical integration a requirement, which could lead to disputes on the nature of "permanent" analogous to disputes over personal identity. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 20 22:55:34 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:55:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> Martin Durkin says his British documentary rejecting the idea of human-caused global warming has survived last week's roasting by the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation]| July 21, 2007 WHEN I agreed to make The Great Global Warming Swindle, I was warned a middle-class fatwa would be placed on my head. So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night it was broadcast on ABC television last week, although I was impressed at the vehemence of the attack. I was more surprised, and delighted, by the response of the Australian public. The ABC studio assault, led by Tony Jones, was so vitriolic it appears to have backfired. We have been inundated with messages of support, and the ABC, I am told, has been flooded with complaints. I have been trying to understand why. First, the ferocity of the attack, I think, revealed the intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp. Why were Jones and co expending such energy and resources attacking one documentary? We are told the global warming theory is robust. They say you'd have to be off your chump to disagree. We have been assured for years, in countless news broadcasts and column inches, that it's definitely true. So why bother to stamp so aggressively on the one foolish documentary-maker - who clearly must be as mad as a snake - who steps out of line? I think viewers may also have wondered (reasonably) why the theory of global warming has not been subjected to this barrage of critical scrutiny by the media. After all, it's the theory of global warming, not my foolish little film, that is turning public and corporate policy on its head. The apparent unwillingness of Jones and others at the ABC to give airtime to a counterargument, the tactics used to minimise the ostensible damage done by the film, the evident animosity towards those who questioned global warming: all of this served to give viewers a glimpse of what it was like for scientists who dared to disagree with the hallowed doctrine. Why are the global warmers so zealous? After a year of arguing with people about this, I am convinced that it's because global warming is first and foremost a political theory. It is an expression of a whole middle-class political world view. This view is summed up in the oft-repeated phrase "we consume too much". I have also come to the conclusion that this is code for "they consume too much". People who believe it tend also to think that exotic foreign places are being ruined because vulgar oiks can afford to go there in significant numbers, they hate plastic toys from factories and prefer wooden ones from craftsmen, and so on. All this backward-looking bigotry has found perfect expression in the idea of man-made climate disaster. It has cohered a bunch of disparate reactionary prejudices (anti-car, anti-supermarkets, anti-globalisation) into a single unquestionable truth and cause. So when you have a dig at global warming, you commit a grievous breach of social etiquette. Among the chattering classes you're a leper. But why are the supporters of global warming so defensive? After all, the middle classes are usually confident, bordering on smug. As I found when I examined the basic data, they have plenty to be defensive about. Billions of dollars of public money have been thrown at global warming, yet the hypothesis is crumbling around their ears. To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer. According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this. This is clearly awkward. The least one should expect of global warming is that the Earth should be getting warmer. Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature leads, CO2 follows. Then there's the precious "hockey stick". This was the famous graph that purported to show global temperature flat-lining for 1000 years, then rising during the 19th and 20th centuries. It magicked away the Medieval warm period and made the recent warming look alarming, instead of just part of the general toing and froing of the Earth's climate. But then researchers took the computer program that produced the hockey stick graph and fed it random data. Bingo, out popped hockey stick shapes every time. (See the report by Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Virginia and others.) In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore's movie. And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been greater, higher up in the Earth's atmosphere (the bit known as the troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change. They concede that CO2 cannot have caused the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, which was greater and steeper than the recent warming. They can't explain the cooling from 1940 to the mid-'70s. What are they left with? Some mild warming in the '80s and '90s that does not appear to have been caused by greenhouse gases. The whole damned theory is in tatters. No wonder they're defensive. The man-made global warming parade, on one level, has been a phenomenal success. There isn't a political party or important public body or large corporation that doesn't feel compelled to pay lip service. There are scientists and journalists (a surprising number) who have built careers championing the cause. There's more money going into global warming research than there is chasing a cure for cancer. Many important people and institutions have staked their reputations on it. There's a lot riding on this theory. And it has bugger-all to do with sea levels. That is why the warmers greeted my film with red glowing eyes. Last week on the ABC they closed ranks. They were not interested in a genuine debate. They wanted to shut it down. And thousands of wonderful, sane, bolshie Australian viewers saw right through it. God bless Australia. The DVD will be out soon. From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Jul 20 22:56:44 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:56:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical In-Reply-To: <22360fa10707201552v2c4b8d8etdc0953d1a8464cef@mail.gmail.com> References: <22360fa10707201552v2c4b8d8etdc0953d1a8464cef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I came across this site today, and it struck my as applicable to some recent friction between certain members of this list. - Jef Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical [image: Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical title, logo, quote] D ------------------------------ What Is NT? Neurotypical syndrome is a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity. Neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one, or the only correct one. NTs find it difficult to be alone. NTs are often intolerant of seemingly minor differences in others. When in groups NTs are socially and behaviorally rigid, and frequently insist upon the performance of dysfunctional, destructive, and even impossible rituals as a way of maintaining group identity. NTs find it difficult to communicate directly, and have a much higher incidence of lying as compared to persons on the autistic spectrum. NT is believed to be genetic in origin. Autopsies have shown the brain of the neurotypical is typically smaller than that of an autistic individual and may have overdeveloped areas related to social behavior. - *The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Normal Disorders: 666.00 Neurotypic Disorder* How Common Is It? Tragically, as many as 9625 out of every 10,000 individuals may be neurotypical. Are There Any Treatments For NT? There is no known cure for Neurotypical Syndrome. However, many NTs have learned to compensate for their disabilitiesand interact normally with autistic persons. Could I be NT? Take the *Online NT Screening Test. * Papers and Abstracts *The Theory of Social Delusion* *NT Social Skills Deficiencies: A Case Study* *The Sal and Anne Test: Implications, and Theory of Mind* Riviera N. The Sal and Annie Test: Implications, and Theory of Mind. Journal of Neurologic Obfuscation. 1998(8):302-987 *Pheromone of Social Delusion: Theory, Discovery and Primary Test Results.* *DSN entry for Staff Personality Disorder* (added 30 Aug 2004) *DSN entry for Normal Personality Disorder* *DSN entry for Pseudosimultaneous Awareness Disorder* *DSN entry for Psychiatry Disorder* *NT Theory of Mind* [image: .] *What is NT? * *How Common Is It? * *Are There Any Treatments For NT? * *Online NT Screening Test* *Papers and Abstracts * *What You Can Do If Someone You Know is NT * *Current Research (guestbook) * *Links * *About This Site * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Jul 20 22:58:45 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:58:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] no brain, no pain Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> WASHINGTON: A man with an unusually tiny brain managed to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, caused by a fluid build-up in his skull, French researchers reported yesterday. Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue. "He was a married father of two children, and worked as a civil servant," Lionel Feuillet and colleagues at the Universite de la Mediterranee in Marseille wrote in a letter to the Lancet medical journal. The man went to a hospital after he had mild weakness in his left leg. When Dr Feuillet's staff took his medical history, they learned he had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus -- water on the brain -- as an infant. The shunt was removed when he was 14. So the researchers did brain scans and were astonished to see "massive enlargement" of the lateral ventricles -- usually tiny chambers that hold the cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain. Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled. "What I find amazing ... is how the brain can deal with something which you think should not be compatible with life," said Max Muenke, a pediatric brain defect specialist. "If something happens very slowly over quite some time, maybe over decades, the different parts of the brain take up functions that would normally be done by the part that is pushed to the side," said Dr Muenke, who was not involved in the case. Reuters From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Jul 20 22:25:01 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:25:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Cyborg or a transhuman ? In-Reply-To: <380-220077520215238191@M2W030.mail2web.com> References: <380-220077520215238191@M2W030.mail2web.com> Message-ID: On 7/20/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > Can anyone answer the million dollar question: > > What is the difference between a cyborg and a transhum? A transhum is a what you get when a cyborg doesn't know the words? But seriously, folks... A cyborg, or cybernetic organism, is an organism composed of integrated artificial and natural systems. So present-day, low-level cyborgs include humans with cochlear implants, hearing aids, cardiac or neural pacemakers, eyeglasses, etc. "Transhuman", on the other hand, is more a reference to a future point on a trajectory beyond present concepts of humanity than anything that can be precisely specified. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Jul 21 02:50:36 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:50:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Contrary Messages about European Economy References: <1e2801c7c964$f3014dd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1ef101c7cb42$75c085e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >> America purportedly has a number of economic >> freedoms yet to be attained by the Europeans... >> But, as in the preface to >> http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf >> the [Swedish] authors are critical. The charts in the PDF file are >> fascinating. > > The following charts suggest that while the US has consistently been > ahead of European countries in per capita GDP, its lead hasn't changed > that much since 1960: > > http://www.demographia.com/db-ppp60+.htm I looked at the columns for France and for the U.S. Yes, according to these, not only has France kept up (rather uniformly)---that is, the same ratio has not only been maintained, but slightly improved for France. (Although my calulator results mysteriously don't match theirs by slight amounts---that is, the data from the top of their table doesn't quite seem to match their calculator results for the bottom of the table, when it should be simply a matter of dividing one number by another---the same picture emerges. This deepens the mystery of whose data to believe. The data from the table you present a link to, or the Swedish study that I presented a link to. Lee From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sat Jul 21 02:36:24 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <606824.7892.qm@web56514.mail.re3.yahoo.com> That one's a classic satire. :) And eerily reminiscent of how much of the writing about autistics appears to actual autistic people. "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Jul 21 03:06:09 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:06:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Resend: "The Empirical Object" by Dr. Sunny Auyang References: <1e7001c7c99a$adec2770$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1ef501c7cb44$904082b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > On 7/18/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> My favorite line in the book is "I have never >> seen a sense impression in my life". In other >> words, we see objects; we *perceive* >> (I suppose) sense impressions. So the >> realism of "I see a car coming towards me" >> is supported, and other theories that might >> tempt one to say (when speaking precisely) >> "I see the sense impression of a car coming >> towards me" are denigrated. > > Them's fancy words, but your concluding paragraph shows that you don't > quite get it. It's indeed possible that the usage of the words I advocate here---that we might say that a distinction between "perceive" and "see" might be ill-advised. But again, I wish that you could *refrain* from these overly inciteful phrases such as "you don't quite get it". Almost all the rest of us would say something like "I don't agree with your analysis here." Please stop. Please stop writing so aggressively (though, of course, compared to the Bad Old Days, this is still nothing.) I'm not aware that there is anything of general importance here that I fundamentally don't get, and your general accusation is merely inflammatory. Can you stop? If so, will you stop? > The author's statement, "I have never seen a sense impression in my > life", is an elegant allusion to the core of the problem. Elegant, > perfect, right-on. She highlights the philosophical problem of the > Cartesian Self, the mind's "I", the homunculous, the "hard problem of > consciousness", qualia, and such related hoohaw. Quite. > For you to say, "we perceive (I suppose) sense impressions", is to > continue to make the core mistake of assuming that sense impressions > are somehow delivered to a perceiver. That's possible. The construction involving "sense impressions" was a conjecture, and thanks for bringing up a possible problem with it. > Rather, the sensory apparatus of the observer interacts with its > local "reality" and the observer system perceives. "Sense > impressions" are meaningless (can't be modeled) when you > insist that they must then be perceived. Okay, so you contend that the "observer system" perceives. Frankly, I do prefer your usage. I sense that indeed use of the term "perceiver" can lead to problems that "observer system" may be free from. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Jul 21 03:10:39 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:10:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Resend: "The Empirical Object" by Dr. Sunny Auyang References: <1e7001c7c99a$adec2770$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1ef901c7cb45$445a0280$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Gordon writes > Good luck with that book, Lee. I'll be expecting a full report when you're > finished. :-) I hope that emoticon did indeed mean "Fat Chance" :-) For it'll be all I can do to deliver a full report---for entirely selfish reasons---about a chapter here and there, now and then! > In the meantime, I hope you'll pay no attention to those here with the > hubris to tell you that you don't get it. Thanks. Honestly, I had not yet read your email when, a few minutes ago I read that hubristic (or somewhat arrogant) remark, and decided not to let it pass. Perhaps your calm evaluation here will help with what I see as a communication problem, so, thanks again. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Jul 21 03:32:05 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:32:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1efa01c7cb48$1285a220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 19/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> > (e) Therefore, maybe death is not bad if someone with some of my past >> > experiences is left behind. >> >> ...A wife who loves her husband but realizes that her >> husband is to lose all of today's memories is probably far less >> concerned than she would be if he were to break an arm. >> We could *suppose* that she is correct. >> >> Here in (e) of course you're using a meaning of "death" that is >> at odds with the one I use. But from your point of view, yes, >> I guess I can't argue with your logic. > > I could have been more precise by using a term like quasi-death for > the death of an instance, or for the death experienced through memory > loss, the point being to work out whether it was this quasi-death that > I feared all along when I feared death, or something else. I like the potential distinction that you introduce with this term "quasi-death". After all, it seems necessary for an instance to identify with *just* his particular instance when, say, certain painful operations are scheduled for the near future. I still think of this as the person's "lower values", "animalistic reactions", and so on---things that I do not really feel essential to being "human". So while I as an instance can calmly and intellectually not be concerned at all---which I long ago succeeded in doing--- I as an instance shall never be calmly unconcerned about impending torture to the instance. That is, if my duplicate and I are strapped down, it's pretty easy for me to start saying to Nurse Ratchet "Do it to him!", just as O'Brien got Winston and Julia to sell each other out. In this same way, it wouldn't be surprising if a scenario could be constructed in which an instance of mine worried about quasi-death (i.e., the death of the copy in question, though close duplicates survive him) (especially if pain or discomfort were involved). > The problem arises because it *was* this aspect of death or quasi-death > (specifically, any process which would lead to my present instance > anticipating no future experiences) which I was worried about. So if > this fear is now seen as inconsistent, my main reason for worrying > about death is gone. In that last sentence, do you mean "quasi-death"? >> But then there is the case of the crackpot who believes he >> is Napoleon. But if you mean by "*felt*" that he really >> did have the same thoughts, memories, and emotions that >> Napoleon had, then naturally it would be isomorphic to >> the Francis Bacon case. > > Even in the similarity criterion for identity, the important thing is > that you continue feeling you are the same person. Necessary, for sure. (But as I've been submitting, not sufficient.) > It is a necessary side-effect of having a sufficiently similar mind > (memories etc.) that you will also feel you are the same person. Quite right. > Even mentally ill people who claim to be someone else (usually > someone famous) generally remember their past, remember > thinking they used to be someone else, but have a rationalisation > for the factual discrepancies. Their crazy persona is continuous > with their normal persona. If this were not so, then they truly > *would* be a different person, and the original would > be dead. Or, if you think that your introduction of "quasi-death" is going to be helpful in many cases, the original would be merely quasi-dead, given the (extremely hypothetical) possibility that he has indeed forgotten his contemporary life (unlike your real patients) and doesn't experience nor is aware of factual discrepancies. But I suspect that to you an instance has legitimate worry about being dead---with all the emotional and intellecutal ramifications entailed by that---even though a copy survives. This is certainly consistent in my experience with what I call the "path conception" of identity, which I have promised to write about. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Jul 21 03:44:39 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:44:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Computer Plays "Perfect Checkers"? Message-ID: <1f0801c7cb49$79b6e930$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> My comments below. Taken from http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/20/computer.checkers.ap/index.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- Perhaps Chinook, the checker-playing computer program, should be renamed "King Me." Canadian researchers report they have "solved" checkers, developing a program that cannot lose in a game popular with young and old alike for more than a thousand years. "The program can achieve at least a draw against any opponent, playing either the black or white pieces," the researchers say in this week's online edition of the journal Science. "Clearly ... the world is not going to be revolutionized" by this, said Jonathan Schaeffer, chairman of the department of computing science at the University of Alberta. The important thing is the approach, he said. In the past, game- playing programs have used rules of thumb -- which are right most of the time, he said -- to make decisions. "What we've done is show that you can take nontrivial problems, very large problems, and you can do the same kind of reasoning with perfection. There is no error in the Chinook result. ... Every decision point is 100 percent." Schaeffer's team started with the end of a game with just one checker on the board. Then the team looked at every possible position with two checkers, on up to 10 checkers on the board. Every combination of 10 checkers offers 39 trillion positions for the endgame, he said. Chinook can calculate them all. It does not matter how the players make it to 10 checkers left because from that point on, the computer cannot lose, Schaeffer said. For two players who never make a mistake, every game would be a draw, he said. "'Checkers is solved' is an intriguing title for this wonderful and delightful article about another former human skill falling to the ubiquitous computer," said Ernest L. Hall, director of the Center for Robotics at the University of Cincinnati. That does not mean an end to people playing checkers, said Hall, who was not part of Schaeffer's research team. Even though a computer beat the world chess champion, people still enjoy and play the that game. "Anything we can do to encourage the further study of science and engineering, of developing problem solvers for the many known needs of the world, should be encouraged," Hall said. "So I applaud Schaeffer for making a breakthrough in computer problem solving for the game of checkers. It may encourage others to solve the other games we encounter in life." Schaeffer's proof is what is called a "weakly solved" result. It calculates the result from an initial position -- 10 pieces on the board -- rather than from the beginning of the game. Could Schaeffer's team produce a "strong solution" by calculating every position from the beginning of a game? Maybe, but there is not enough computer power available, he said. It took more than 18 years to get where they are now. How about chess? Current chess computers still rely on rules of thumb rather than trying to study every possible position, Schaeffer noted. "Checkers has roughly the square root of the number of positions in chess," the researchers said. "Given the effort required to solve checkers, chess will remain unsolved for a long time, barring the invention of new technology." It's not clear to *me* that their computer can play perfect checkers. I may have to read the entire article itself, which I haven't had time to do. For one thing, it may be that before one of the endgame positions is reached---ten pieces, it said ---the computer could already find itself in a lost position (not that any human may be able to discover such a fine line of play, but, say, at the hands of another, program one perhaps not as yet written). This certainly is the situation in chess, where the programs have indeed already solved up all six-piece endings (or some such number, it changes all the time of course). But obviously when they do lose---either to each other or to a human---it's because they've made mistakes long before getting to the endgame (on the extremely reasonable assumption that neither white nor black has a forced win in chess from the beginning position). Lee From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 03:50:07 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:50:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Computer Plays "Perfect Checkers"? In-Reply-To: <1f0801c7cb49$79b6e930$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1f0801c7cb49$79b6e930$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <55ad6af70707202050h2f215dd8v998b5638b26cc688@mail.gmail.com> On 7/20/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > My comments below. Taken from > http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/20/computer.checkers.ap/index.html This has been discussed over at Slashdot with some interesting comments (and links), http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/07/19/1952211.shtml (341 comments) - Bryan From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Jul 21 04:33:13 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:33:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Resend: "The Empirical Object" by Dr. Sunny Auyang In-Reply-To: <1ef501c7cb44$904082b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1e7001c7c99a$adec2770$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1ef501c7cb44$904082b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 7/20/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes > > > On 7/18/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > >> My favorite line in the book is "I have never > >> seen a sense impression in my life". In other > >> words, we see objects; we *perceive* > >> (I suppose) sense impressions. So the > >> realism of "I see a car coming towards me" > >> is supported, and other theories that might > >> tempt one to say (when speaking precisely) > >> "I see the sense impression of a car coming > >> towards me" are denigrated. > > > > Them's fancy words, but your concluding paragraph shows that you don't > > quite get it. > > It's indeed possible that the usage of the words I advocate > here---that we might say that a distinction between "perceive" > and "see" might be ill-advised. But again, I wish that you > could *refrain* from these overly inciteful phrases such as > "you don't quite get it". Almost all the rest of us would say > something like "I don't agree with your analysis here." And I thought "quite" in "you don't quite get it", made it mild. > Please stop. Please stop writing so aggressively (though, of > course, compared to the Bad Old Days, this is still nothing.) > I'm not aware that there is anything of general importance > here that I fundamentally don't get, and your general > accusation is merely inflammatory. Can you stop? > If so, will you stop? Even I can see now that I've been boorish and overbearing. If you will allow me back into your good graces I shall endeavor to abstain from such inflammatory rhetoric. And I shall attend to your own writings with eyes only for the insightful, and never the inciteful -- as if one could ever properly suppose you guilty of licentious logic or even misdemeanor myopia. > > The author's statement, "I have never seen a sense impression in my > > life", is an elegant allusion to the core of the problem. Elegant, > > perfect, right-on. She highlights the philosophical problem of the > > Cartesian Self, the mind's "I", the homunculous, the "hard problem of > > consciousness", qualia, and such related hoohaw. > > Quite. > > > For you to say, "we perceive (I suppose) sense impressions", is to > > continue to make the core mistake of assuming that sense impressions > > are somehow delivered to a perceiver. > > That's possible. The construction involving "sense impressions" > was a conjecture, and thanks for bringing up a possible problem > with it. > > > Rather, the sensory apparatus of the observer interacts with its > > local "reality" and the observer system perceives. "Sense > > impressions" are meaningless (can't be modeled) when you > > insist that they must then be perceived. > > Okay, so you contend that the "observer system" perceives. > Frankly, I do prefer your usage. I sense that indeed use of the > term "perceiver" can lead to problems that "observer system" > may be free from. If I may say so, I find myself ever so slightly troubled over a trifle. I take full responsibility for this, but despite my best efforts I fail to understand the following: How would one reconcile your statement of "[nothing] of general importance here that [you] fundamentally don't get" with your statement acknowledging it's possible that you continue to make the core mistake of assuming that sense impressions are somehow delivered to a perceiver? IMHO, it's not usage, but conceptual coherence that's at issue, and I'm sorry to say I still find myself not fully agreeing with your analysis. - Jef From mmbutler at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 06:29:23 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:29:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] no brain, no pain In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7d79ed890707202329v3f9e5ed1g951c3ae90ad6f80f@mail.gmail.com> But how popular was he -- was he shunt by others? (cue audience groans) On 7/20/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > When Dr Feuillet's staff took his medical history, they learned he > had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus -- > water on the brain -- as an infant. The shunt was removed when he was 14. ... > Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average > score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled. > > "What I find amazing ... is how the brain can deal with something > which you think should not be compatible with life," said Max Muenke, > a pediatric brain defect specialist. -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m SOC: Everybody in the world hates you. GLEN: That's good, because it makes things more challenging. SOC: You're insane ? you're out of your freaking mind. GLEN: That's good, too, because it makes thinking more challenging. From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jul 21 13:20:27 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:20:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Cyborg or a transhuman ? In-Reply-To: References: <380-220077520215238191@M2W030.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070721081156.05bc37c8@natasha.cc> At 05:25 PM 7/20/2007, Jef wrote: >On 7/20/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > Can anyone answer the million dollar question: > > > > What is the difference between a cyborg and a transhum? > >A transhum is a what you get when a cyborg doesn't know the words? haha. This is good! >But seriously, folks... > >A cyborg, or cybernetic organism, is an organism composed of >integrated artificial and natural systems. So present-day, low-level >cyborgs include humans with cochlear implants, hearing aids, cardiac >or neural pacemakers, eyeglasses, etc. > >"Transhuman", on the other hand, is more a reference to a future point >on a trajectory beyond present concepts of humanity than anything that >can be precisely specified. I wonder if it not more fundamentally related to "human nature" (the elephant in the room). I was just listening to Kevin Kelly's talk at TED and how he approaches the idea from a theory of technology and "hacking" as an essential nature all life forms. But I agree that the transhuman is a "becoming" and each cyborg stage is a fata compli. - just musing. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute 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 Sat Jul 21 13:21:54 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:21:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] no brain, no pain In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070721082119.0563cb28@natasha.cc> At 05:58 PM 7/20/2007, you wrote: >WASHINGTON: A man with an unusually tiny brain managed to live an >entirely normal life despite his condition, caused by a fluid >build-up in his skull, French researchers reported yesterday. > >Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled >chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, >leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue. Whoah! Amazing. Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute 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 Sat Jul 21 13:23:42 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:23:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10707201552v2c4b8d8etdc0953d1a8464cef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070721082220.05ba3db8@natasha.cc> At 05:56 PM 7/20/2007, Jef wrote: >I came across this site today, and it struck my as applicable to >some recent friction between certain members of this list. > >- Jef > LOL!!! This is really funny!!! Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute 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 stathisp at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 14:05:51 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:05:51 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma (Personal Identity Paradox) In-Reply-To: <1efa01c7cb48$1285a220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1efa01c7cb48$1285a220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 21/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > The problem arises because it *was* this aspect of death or quasi-death > > (specifically, any process which would lead to my present instance > > anticipating no future experiences) which I was worried about. So if > > this fear is now seen as inconsistent, my main reason for worrying > > about death is gone. > > In that last sentence, do you mean "quasi-death"? If it was mainly the inability to anticipate future experiences I was worried about, a necessary effect of quasi-death and death, and I can convince myself that I should not be worried about it any more (because, for example, I would not be worried about the quasi-death of partial memory loss), then I should no longer be worried about either quasi-death or death. Not fearing death or quasi-death at all would be one consistent position. But perhaps I could revise what it is that I fear so that I no longer fear quasi-death but only fear death; quasi-death being when there are near copies remaining or to be created later, death being when there aren't and never will be. But if I am to accept that definition of death, it would seem that I should be as happy for past versions of myself to survive as future versions. Having past versions of myself eliminated isn't normally an option, but the thought experiment in another post in which I consider a model of a block universe in parallel computers provides just such an opportunity, and I would selfishly sacrifice all my past selves to gain any extra runtime for my future selves. I can't really arrive at a fully consistent position. It appears that not only are my feelings about death and survival not rationally justified, but they cannot be rationally justified, however I look at it. The only position free from contradictions is to say that death and quasi-death don't matter at all, and I'm really prepared to say that. So it appears that I am bound to be inconsistent, and my only choice is in the type of inconsistency. -- Stathis Papaioannou From mfj.eav at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 15:43:41 2007 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:43:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm Message-ID: <61c8738e0707210843x544df471ja6482c1fae2c6f6e@mail.gmail.com> I agree, but as I said it is a *good scam* as the result is global industrial bioeconomy with the taxpayer on the hook for a good part of it. The bioeconomy will be accelerated greatly by this "green" boom. As I see it , we must understand at least one phase of global weather trends before going the next step, global weather control/managment. As I said before, the first singularity magnitude mega-problem is to design a global weather control mechanism. While anti-aging and self directed evolution are also singularity scale projects, they are personal and can be undertaken "in the shadows". Managing the energy inputs and outputs that comprise the first global scale mega project will be the first sign that that earth's "bio-film" can self-optimize its global energy production and consumption cycles. -- LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. 306-447-4944, 701-240-9411 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 21 18:10:36 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] omd! the bibble was right! In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070719174842.02353d78@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <111495.33739.qm@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Damien, I would think you of all people would know the real reason for dinosaurs becoming extinct... http://www.kidsgrowth.com/images/dinosaur.jpg John Grigg : ) Damien Broderick wrote: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1478 but only 1/2 right--there were *2* Floods! I reckon the first one took out the last of the intelligent dinosaurs (well, forced them to flee in their flying saucers, anyway). _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Sat Jul 21 19:13:56 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:13:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Cyborg or a transhuman ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A25AF4.10606@lineone.net> "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" asked: > > Can anyone answer the million dollar question: > > What is the difference between a cyborg and a transhum? Easy. I'd say that a cyborg is necessarily a transhuman, but a transhuman isn't necessarily a cyborg. Can i have my million dollars now, please? ben From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 21 20:13:51 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] A Cyborg or a transhuman ? In-Reply-To: <46A25AF4.10606@lineone.net> Message-ID: <213164.57726.qm@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Ben wrote: >Can i have my million dollars now, please? Uhmm..., that would be *six* million dollars. : ) I believe (Natasha, correct me if I'm wrong) that FM 2030 would agree that a cyborg is by nature a Transhuman of sorts (even if he or she does not realize this and has a different worldview). Ben, I guess you didn't realize that all Transhumanists ARE in fact cyborgs! Have you ever attempted to best Max More in an argument or beat him at arm wrestling? hee Attend Transvision 2007 and the WTA will get you fully outfitted with the latest artificial super-limbs and internal organs. I believe the registration fee covers this. John Grigg : ) ben wrote: "nvitamore at austin.rr.com" asked: > > Can anyone answer the million dollar question: > > What is the difference between a cyborg and a transhum? Easy. I'd say that a cyborg is necessarily a transhuman, but a transhuman isn't necessarily a cyborg. Can i have my million dollars now, please? ben _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dharris234 at mindspring.com Sat Jul 21 16:28:34 2007 From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:28:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] no brain, no pain In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <46A23432.8030306@mindspring.com> Re: "normal pressure hydrocephalus" This report is interesting because there is a condition called "normal pressure hydrocephalus". The cause is a blockage of the normal flow of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The brain spaces (ventricles) get blown up, pressing the neural tissue against the skull, causing damage. The symptoms are a classic "triad" of (1) dementia, (2) an impaired gait like the feet are "stuck", and (3) incontinence of urine and sometimes feces. (Yeah, gross). My 89 year old father may have this condition, as he certainly has the "triad" of symptoms, otherwise unexplained in their relatively rapid onset. The diagnosis is difficult (comparing brain scans taken over time, pressure measurement, lumbar puncture to temporarily lower CSF pressure), and the usual treatment is surgery to implant a shunt and tube that leads CSF one way out of the brain ventricles. What's interesting here is that if the ventricle swells really slowly, the brain can compensate for the swelling. With normal pressure hydrocephalus, the elderly are not known to be able to compensate for the pressure. I guess it's possible that some of the waxing and waning of the symptoms could include a few of the elderly who partially or completely recover by this man's mechanism. With surgical implanting of shunts into elderly brains, about half stabilize, a quarter recover "completely", and a quarter don't benefit. - David Harris Damien Broderick wrote: > WASHINGTON: A man with an unusually tiny brain managed to live an > entirely normal life despite his condition, caused by a fluid > build-up in his skull, French researchers reported yesterday. > > Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled > chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, > leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue. > > "He was a married father of two children, and worked as a civil > servant," Lionel Feuillet and colleagues at the Universite de la > Mediterranee in Marseille wrote in a letter to the Lancet medical > journal. The man went to a hospital after he had mild weakness in his > left leg. > > When Dr Feuillet's staff took his medical history, they learned he > had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus -- > water on the brain -- as an infant. The shunt was removed when he was 14. > > So the researchers did brain scans and were astonished to see > "massive enlargement" of the lateral ventricles -- usually tiny > chambers that hold the cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain. > Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average > score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled. > > "What I find amazing ... is how the brain can deal with something > which you think should not be compatible with life," said Max Muenke, > a pediatric brain defect specialist. > > "If something happens very slowly over quite some time, maybe over > decades, the different parts of the brain take up functions that > would normally be done by the part that is pushed to the side," said > Dr Muenke, who was not involved in the case. > > Reuters > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 22 05:14:18 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:14:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Affecting Past Experience References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0b1201c7c6da$20655330$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > [Lee wrote] > >> ...experience and not just a memory addition. It's very much >> as in Total Recall, where at after the Martian adventure is >> over Arnold will always wonder whether it really happened >> or the folks at Total Recall just added in the memories. We >> may assume for convenience that Arnold would treasure >> the experience having been real (even if somehow it had no >> further repercussions in his life). > > This would be a very artificial situation, as in almost every case > there would be no impact on a present subject whether his past > was real or imagined. That certainly doesn't seem so to me. Consider whether I really did commit a crime or only imagined having committed it. In the former case, the police may be hot on my heels! And as for the Martian Adventure, if it really happened and the character made a real impact on history, his life will hardly be the same: he'll be nominated for Savior of Mars at the very least. Perhaps you mean something else, but I don't see what. > My original experiment could conceivably be modelled without the need > for godlike powers. Suppose I am informed that I am living in a > computer simulation of a special kind. My whole life from birth to > death has been determined, and is being run in real time in day long > sections simultaneously on geographically separated computers, one > computer for each day of my life, so that the whole thing is over and > done with in a single day in the real world. I am also aware that > these computers are the focus of a bombing campaign by forces who > believe sentient software is blasphemous. Ah, very nice scenario. > Although it's beyond my control, I fervently hope that the terrorists > will not destroy the computers running days in my subjective future, > but I don't really care if they destroy computers running days in my > subjective past. I don't really know why you care more about these discrete *future* days than you do about the *past* ones. If tomorrow is a day that gets bombed (I really like the imagery [1]), then you'll simply not experience that. But the day after tomorrow and all the days beyond, it will be exactly the same as if tomorrow happened. (Actually, were I scheduled for root canal surgery for tomorrow, then I would even hope that it got bombed!) > In fact, I would prefer that all my past days be destroyed if it could > save one future day, even though that way the total runtime of all > instances of me is reduced. Evidently you and I simply calculate these things differently. I would not like losing some actual very pleasant day in my past (retaining only the memories). True, I cannot tell if it gets bombed or not, but I have the intellectual knowledge that my life as a whole was worse off for not having really experienced that day. Lee [1] Instead of me getting bombed tomorrow, it's tomorrow itself that get bombed! I probably could stand getting bombed tomorrow, it being a day off. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 22 05:36:39 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:36:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707150341w7cff1c03ydb16298656a6f48b@mail.gmail.com> <0b1301c7c6db$87648dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0b3901c7c709$10cdbbe0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707170725ic5dabfau382ac4db7fe9d5fd@mail.gmail.com> <1eab01c7c9c4$b8c798d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707190910n32642a29lcc8153dfe7e8f87e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1f5901c7cc22$9ec42ec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > I was thinking about your Anticipation Dilemma. If you should be eagerly anticipating > the dinner you ate last night because some earlier point-in-time version of yourself has > not yet eaten it That's a vastly simpler way of putting it than my contorted explication. Your explanation is perhaps less rigorous---but not needing an omniscient AI or God, not needing time-travel, etc., certainly has its advantages. (Of course the whole point, for those just joining us, is that I doubt very much whether it's possible to put *anticipation* on a completely rational and defensible basis as a concept, even though our lives are mostly driven by it. That is, we do many things because we anticipate the pleasure or satisfaction that will be obtained---and it's obvious why natural selection did not build into us a similar anticipation of past events, even though (at least from the "state" or "patternist" formulation of identity) past events are on the same logical footing as future events.) > and you must embrace the anticipation of all your selves. Right. That's the primrose path down which certain thought experiments seem invariably to lead. > If you are willing to lose access to the runtime of an arbitrary week > from your past and you identify with earlier point-in-time selves, It's important to distinguish this case from the one Stathis just brought up. In his case the experience never actually occurred, despite your having memories of it. In this case here, the experience happened all right, but the memory has been erased. That must be what you mean by "access to the runtime" of a particular week. > are you allowing them to be erased because your "now" awareness > has deemed them less valuable than the unknown future moments > you have not yet experienced? No, in this scenario both the past moments and the future moments really happen, it's just a question as to whether *memories* of them are to be retained or not. Okay, say my going rate for a typical 2006 week's worth of memories is $5M. (Really, I'll lose one of those for a *lot* less!) > Is the exchange fixed for any arbitrary week, or only for the immediately > past week? Any week. If I get to examine the week, and my diary allows me to evalutate the worth of those particular memories, then the price may go up or down. There are some days (and presumably weeks) that I'd just as soon forget! Moreover, I'm afraid that I already have forgotten particular days. Even perhaps to the extent of you showing me secretly taped video of everything I did and said on that day and me not finding any of it familiar. A lot of days from high school are surely like that: show me the video of the entire day, and I might not remember a single incident. > Does the time have to be contiguous? [No.] Could we erase 1 week's > worth of memory from a disconnected set of 1 hour intervals? > (memory/life edit reminds me of some movies "Paycheck", "Click", > "50 First Dates") Sure. Usually, that's how I really forget stuff anyway. > Suppose far future you has rated the next two weeks so uneventfully > boring that they should be sold. That's great! Would that I could actually sell some for real money! > Your "Now" self is given the choice of selling either your next two > weeks (based on your future self's suggestion that they're for sale) > or any two weeks from your farther past. If your future self has not > given you an alternate period to choose from, do you vote with > them on losing the next two weeks of your future or select a past > period from on own? Normally I would defer to the wishes of my future self: he's in a better position to know what is worth keeping than this-instance here is. On the other hand, if he is sufficently different from me (and has, say, sworn off Earthly pleasures entirely) then I would not abide his judgment. > I'm not necessarily making a point or trying to trap anyone, Oh, no. Not at all. (Isn't it amazing, though, how careful we must be against misunderstandings?) > I was just thinking about this and wonder what is your opinion. Sure. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 22 05:42:36 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 22:42:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] no brain, no pain References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1f6601c7cc23$52aba210$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien posted the article (with some paragraphs deleted by me) > WASHINGTON: A man with an unusually tiny brain managed to live an > entirely normal life despite his condition, caused by a fluid > ... > > "He was a married father of two children, and worked as a civil > servant,"... > > So the researchers did brain scans and were astonished to see > "massive enlargement" of the lateral ventricles -- usually tiny > chambers that hold the cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain. > Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average > score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled. If this is average for civil servants, it could explain a lot! Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Jul 22 06:14:31 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:14:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] no brain, no pain In-Reply-To: <1f6601c7cc23$52aba210$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> <1f6601c7cc23$52aba210$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070722010429.0231c650@satx.rr.com> At 10:42 PM 7/21/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > > Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average > > score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled. > >If this is average for civil servants, it could explain a lot! I think it's more typical of reporters. IQ 75 is certainly retarded. at random: Despite that silliness, it's still remarkable that an IQ as high as 75 can be sustained with such massive intracranial damage. (Mystics will no doubt use this as evidence that the soul's docking station can be quite small. I'm still convinced that it's the vermiform appendix, which explains the 20th century.) Damien Broderick From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 22 09:02:57 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] The rock "was The Reality of Categories" Message-ID: <548488.96305.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anna wrote: >>I would ask the alien; "as i've observed the rock >>for at least 10 years, the rock hasn't changed". At >>the same time I understand that "the rock" has came >>in contact with many of species, is the rock >>different or has the rock changed "the specie". >>Is this what you where getting at? On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >Well, no, because rocks always *do* change, even >though it's not easy to observe it. Rocks can't change themself. They can't do anything. What happens to rocks depend on the contacts the rocks makes. >But if you were to use a microscope, you'd see that >indeed the surface undergoes alterations in various >ways, sometimes eroding a bit, sometimes getting a >tiny thin layer of other material. The rocks still haven't done anything. Everything that surrounds the rock changes but the rock remains the same yet is altered by the changes. >When we were discussing that, I believe that my >correspondents and I were supposing that insofar as >these tiny changes are concerned, that particular >species is extraordinarily sensitive. I would assume that analyzing what are the particles that surround the rock is extensive research but I still don't believe that the rock had anything to do in the aid to understanding it. >So in this wise it is conceivable that the creature >might deny the "sameness" of the rock, even though >to us it clearly had not changed. I don't understand what you mean, who is "us"? Thanks Lee, always a pleasure. Anna:) Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 09:41:38 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:41:38 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Affecting Past Experience In-Reply-To: <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 22/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > That certainly doesn't seem so to me. Consider whether I really > did commit a crime or only imagined having committed it. In > the former case, the police may be hot on my heels! And as > for the Martian Adventure, if it really happened and the character > made a real impact on history, his life will hardly be the same: > he'll be nominated for Savior of Mars at the very least. Perhaps > you mean something else, but I don't see what. I was thinking of the case where the illusion was perfect, as in a virtual reality program with all the evidence of the past pre-programmed so that it is impossible for anyone inside the program to know whether it had or had not actually happened. > > My original experiment could conceivably be modelled without the need > > for godlike powers. Suppose I am informed that I am living in a > > computer simulation of a special kind. My whole life from birth to > > death has been determined, and is being run in real time in day long > > sections simultaneously on geographically separated computers, one > > computer for each day of my life, so that the whole thing is over and > > done with in a single day in the real world. I am also aware that > > these computers are the focus of a bombing campaign by forces who > > believe sentient software is blasphemous. > > Ah, very nice scenario. > > > Although it's beyond my control, I fervently hope that the terrorists > > will not destroy the computers running days in my subjective future, > > but I don't really care if they destroy computers running days in my > > subjective past. > > I don't really know why you care more about these discrete *future* > days than you do about the *past* ones. If tomorrow is a day that > gets bombed (I really like the imagery [1]), then you'll simply not > experience that. But the day after tomorrow and all the days > beyond, it will be exactly the same as if tomorrow happened. > (Actually, were I scheduled for root canal surgery for tomorrow, > then I would even hope that it got bombed!) This brings up another twist in that you wouldn't know if every second day of your life, or an even larger proportion, did not actually occur. Would you agree to be given some advantage on your "on" days if you gave up a proportion of your future runtime as "off" days? I am not sure how I would answer this question, but it would be much less problematic if it were only past days that I was giving up. > > In fact, I would prefer that all my past days be destroyed if it could > > save one future day, even though that way the total runtime of all > > instances of me is reduced. > > Evidently you and I simply calculate these things differently. I would > not like losing some actual very pleasant day in my past (retaining > only the memories). True, I cannot tell if it gets bombed or not, > but I have the intellectual knowledge that my life as a whole was > worse off for not having really experienced that day. The intellectual knowledge would be worth something, but it wouldn't be worth as much as actual future experiences. Would you give up the last ten years for the next ten years, if your and everyone else's memories of the last ten years remained unchanged? -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 10:47:02 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:47:02 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The rock "was The Reality of Categories" In-Reply-To: <548488.96305.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <548488.96305.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 22/07/07, Anna Taylor wrote: > On 7/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > >Well, no, because rocks always *do* change, even > >though it's not easy to observe it. > > Rocks can't change themself. They can't do anything. > What happens to rocks depend on the contacts the rocks > makes. Even a rock in the vacuum of interstellar space changes, since the atoms in it have thermal motion (it can't be at absolute zero) and some of them undergo radioactive decay. Moreover, the rock will be moving relative to other bodies, and motion is a gross form of change, even if the atoms in the rock maintained their position relative to each other. An alien might claim that it is ridiculous to say it is the same rock, but a metre to the left, since the rock would in that case have obviously changed relative to the observer. Lee was arguing that such a pedantic alien would likely not have evolved naturally and maybe this is so, but it doesn't change the fact that when we say "the same" we are referring some gradation of sameness rather than absolute and context-free sameness. -- Stathis Papaioannou From randall at randallsquared.com Sun Jul 22 13:54:18 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:54:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] no brain, no pain In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070722010429.0231c650@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> <1f6601c7cc23$52aba210$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070722010429.0231c650@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Jul 22, 2007, at 2:14 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Despite that silliness, it's still remarkable that an IQ as high as > 75 can be sustained with such massive intracranial damage. There was a similar case of a college student found to have similar damage, who had a reported IQ above 120. -- 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 natasha at natasha.cc Sun Jul 22 15:37:53 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:37:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Cyborg or a transhuman ? In-Reply-To: <213164.57726.qm@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <46A25AF4.10606@lineone.net> <213164.57726.qm@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070722101552.05170e08@natasha.cc> At 03:13 PM 7/21/2007, you wrote: >Ben wrote: > >Can i have my million dollars now, please? >Uhmm..., that would be *six* million dollars. : ) > >I believe (Natasha, correct me if I'm wrong) that FM 2030 would >agree that a cyborg is by nature a Transhuman of sorts (even if he >or she does not realize this and has a different worldview). He was inclined not to use the term cyborg probably maybe because cyborgs usually like half-breed monsters and many do evil deeds. Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute 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 desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 22 17:29:01 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] no brain, no pain In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175800.021ad098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <542400.49216.qm@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >From Reuters: "What I find amazing ... is how the brain can deal with something which you think should not be compatible with life," said Max Muenke, a pediatric brain defect specialist. "If something happens very slowly over quite some time, maybe over decades, the different parts of the brain take up functions that would normally be done by the part that is pushed to the side," said Dr Muenke, who was not involved in the case. > I think there may be potential here for Transhumanist cognitive function enhancement technologies. The old saying "we only use 10% of our brain" is now scoffed at but I see this man's brain function as evidence that there is at least some actual truth to it. Is all the extra brain mass the average person has compared to the man in the story simply "reserve storage capacity" or could we eventually learn to tap into it to be cognitive supermen and superwomen? And what price would we pay to do so? John Grigg --------------------------------- Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 22 22:45:20 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:45:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb901c7c7a1$cb6e1600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1efa01c7cb48$1285a220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1f9101c7ccb2$32fc77c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 21/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> [Stathis wrote] >> >> > The problem arises because it *was* this aspect of death or quasi-death >> > (specifically, any process which would lead to my present instance >> > anticipating no future experiences) which I was worried about. So if >> > this fear is now seen as inconsistent, my main reason for worrying >> > about death is gone. Interestingly, an off-line correspondent has conjectured that memory erasure may not interfere with one's anticipation of far distant events (if I am reading him right), particularly, at least, in a non-patternist view. (Of course it doesn't in the patternist, or information theory of identity.) We'll have to get into that consideration or possibility before long. >> In that last sentence, do you mean "quasi-death"? > > If it was mainly the inability to anticipate future experiences I was > worried about, a necessary effect of quasi-death and death, and I can > convince myself that I should not be worried about it any more > (because, for example, I would not be worried about the quasi-death of > partial memory loss), then I should no longer be worried about either > quasi-death or death. Does this mean that you suspect that the prospect of memory erasure (say the last week's worth) would not prevent you from anticipating the pleasures of a vacation to Hawaii planned for later this year? > Not fearing death or quasi-death at all would be one consistent > position. But perhaps I could revise what it is that I fear so that I > no longer fear quasi-death but only fear death; And now: > quasi-death being when there are near copies remaining or to be > created later, death being when there aren't and never will be. Thanks for a restatement of what you mean by *quasi-death* (which seems to me quite helpful definition). > But if I am to accept that definition of death, it would seem that I > should be as happy for past versions of myself to survive as future > versions. Except for the relatively minor inconvenience, I suppose, of losing a little memory. But basically, yes, it would seem that you should (or could) be as happy for past version to survive. > Having past versions of myself eliminated isn't normally an > option, but the thought experiment in another post in which I consider > a model of a block universe in parallel computers provides just such > an opportunity, and I would selfishly sacrifice all my past selves to > gain any extra runtime for my future selves. Although it is very interesting, it seems to me that the idea of actually eliding past runtime is a separate issue from our anxieties over impending memory loss. But I guess I see now what you really meant by "past versions of myself to survive". You seem to be using "to survive" as meaning to "get runtime", and in the sense of denying a past self his runtime (in your bombing scenario), whereas I usually think of "to survive" as whether from a given point the future solar system will host "you". > I can't really arrive at a fully consistent position. It appears that > not only are my feelings about death and survival not rationally > justified, but they cannot be rationally justified, however I look at > it. The only position free from contradictions is to say that death > and quasi-death don't matter at all, and I'm really prepared to say > that. You really *are* prepared to say that death (and the weaker quasi-death) don't matter, or was the word "not" left out? That seems to be taking all this philosophy stuff a bit far! > So it appears that I am bound to be inconsistent, and my only > choice is in the type of inconsistency. (It seems to me, by the way, that I obtained what I think of as a consistent position by jettisoning the reliability of anticipation, which is quite a price, I admit.) Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 22 23:00:25 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:00:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Computer Plays "Perfect Checkers"? References: <1f0801c7cb49$79b6e930$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <55ad6af70707202050h2f215dd8v998b5638b26cc688@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1f9f01c7ccb4$4e1e80f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Bryan writes > On 7/20/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >> My comments below. Taken from >> http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/20/computer.checkers.ap/index.html > > This has been discussed over at Slashdot with some interesting > comments (and links), > http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/07/19/1952211.shtml (341 comments) The best thing I found there was this article: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/full/070716-13.html which reads: Long-time world checkers champion Marion Tinsley consistently bested all comers, losing only nine games in the 40 years following his 1954 crowning. He lost his world championship title to a computer program in 1994 and now that same program has become unbeatable; its creators have proved that even a perfectly played game against it will end in a draw. Jonathan Schaeffer and his team at the University of Alberta, Canada, have been working on their program, called Chinook, since 1989, running calculations on as many as 200 computers simultaneously. Schaeffer has now announced that they have solved the game of American checkers, which is played on an 8 by 8 board and is also known as English draughts. The team directed Chinook so it didn't have to go through every one of the 500 billion billion (5 * 1020) possible moves. Not all losing plays needed to be analysed; instead, for each game position, Chinook needed to work out only a move that would allow it to win. In the end, only 1/5,000,000 of the moves were computed. As Chinook has worked out all relevant lines of play, it needs virtually no time to 'think' to work out each perfect move in a game. The results were announced today in the journal Science1. The paper and supporting materials, including the ability to play Chinook, are available on the web at http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook. Jaap van den Herik, editor of the International Computer Games Journal, calls the achievement "a truly significant advance in artificial intelligence". Un-trivial pursuit The solvability of a board game generally depends on two factors: the number of possible positions, or 'state-space complexity', and the difficulty of deciding on the best move, or 'decision complexity'. Tic-tac-toe is simple on both counts - simple enough to be figured out by children. Checkers, says van den Herik, is complex in both regards (see 'How hard is your game'). Chess is even harder to solve than checkers, with a state-space complexity of 1046. Decision complexity is difficult to quantify, but it is clearly high for chess. Van den Herik thinks that chess will be solved "not within our lives, but within the lives of our children - I would say between 2060 and 2070". "Twenty years ago, we thought chess was as an infinite game," notes van den Herik. "But the proof of Schaeffer is one more signpost that we are approaching the solution." But Schaeffer says new tools are needed before that will happen. "Chess and Go cannot be solved with the type of technology that we have today," he says. The game of Go, as played on a 19 by 19 grid, is often considered to be the hardest popular game to crack, with something like 10100 possible positions. Game of Life Schaeffer notes that his research has implications beyond the checkers board. The same algorithms his team writes to solve games could be helpful in searching other databases, such as vast lists of biological information because, as he says, "At the core, they both reduce to the same fundamental problem: large, compressed data sets that have to be accessed quickly." Thus what I wrote before along the lines of > It's not clear to *me* that their computer can play perfect > checkers. I may have to read the entire article itself, which > I haven't had time to do. For one thing, it may be that before > one of the endgame positions is reached---ten pieces, it said > ---the computer could already find itself in a lost position seems quite unjustified. That article too carefully quotes actually knowledgeable software types. Perhaps they've simply proved somehow that the program can and will reduce *any* position (starting from the initial position with itself playing black or white) to one of the ten-piece winning/drawing positions. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Jul 22 23:18:21 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:18:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Computer Plays "Perfect Checkers"? In-Reply-To: <1f9f01c7ccb4$4e1e80f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1f0801c7cb49$79b6e930$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <55ad6af70707202050h2f215dd8v998b5638b26cc688@mail.gmail.com> <1f9f01c7ccb4$4e1e80f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0707221618m305a53e5hff4854b9dfd1deb1@mail.gmail.com> On 7/23/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Perhaps they've simply proved somehow that the program > can and will reduce *any* position (starting from the initial position > with > itself playing black or white) to one of the ten-piece winning/drawing > positions. > I believe they have. I looked at the interactive search tree on the web site (which allows you to expand the tree node by node and shows the minimax value of each node where known), and although many nodes are marked unknown (presumably as a result of optimizations such as alpha-beta search), it seems that right from the start the program always has access to at least one move whose minimax value is known to be no worse than a draw. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 00:19:13 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:19:13 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma In-Reply-To: <1f9101c7ccb2$32fc77c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1efa01c7cb48$1285a220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f9101c7ccb2$32fc77c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 23/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > I can't really arrive at a fully consistent position. It appears that > > not only are my feelings about death and survival not rationally > > justified, but they cannot be rationally justified, however I look at > > it. The only position free from contradictions is to say that death > > and quasi-death don't matter at all, and I'm really prepared to say > > that. > > You really *are* prepared to say that death (and the weaker > quasi-death) don't matter, or was the word "not" left out? > That seems to be taking all this philosophy stuff a bit far! Oops, I did leave out the "not". However, I will say this: I am considerably *less* worried about my death as a result of these philosophical considerations than I was between the ages of about five and eighteen, when the thought of having no further experiences was utterly terrifying. -- Stathis Papaioannou From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 07:23:51 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:53:51 +0930 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> Is anyone else as confused about Global Warming as I am? I can't get a clear idea of whether it is real or not, and if so, whether it is caused by human CO2 emissions or not. It's clearly important to get this right, because - if it's not real, we shouldn't be doing all this carbon emission handwringing - if it is real and human caused, lowering carbon emissions is a good idea - if it is real and not human caused, we still have a very scary period ahead in which we need to do something else entirely to cope with future rising sea levels and temperature increases. Emlyn Fry - "It's a good thing global warming never happened" Leela - "It did. But it's a good thing nuclear winter cancelled it out" On 21/07/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > > Martin Durkin says his British documentary rejecting the idea of > human-caused global warming has survived last week's roasting by the > ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation]| July 21, 2007 > > WHEN I agreed to make The Great Global Warming Swindle, I was warned > a middle-class fatwa would be placed on my head. > > So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night it > was broadcast on ABC television last week, although I was impressed > at the vehemence of the attack. I was more surprised, and delighted, > by the response of the Australian public. > > The ABC studio assault, led by Tony Jones, was so vitriolic it > appears to have backfired. We have been inundated with messages of > support, and the ABC, I am told, has been flooded with complaints. I > have been trying to understand why. > > First, the ferocity of the attack, I think, revealed the intolerance > and defensiveness of the global warming camp. Why were Jones and co > expending such energy and resources attacking one documentary? We are > told the global warming theory is robust. They say you'd have to be > off your chump to disagree. We have been assured for years, in > countless news broadcasts and column inches, that it's definitely > true. So why bother to stamp so aggressively on the one foolish > documentary-maker - who clearly must be as mad as a snake - who steps > out of line? > > I think viewers may also have wondered (reasonably) why the theory of > global warming has not been subjected to this barrage of critical > scrutiny by the media. After all, it's the theory of global warming, > not my foolish little film, that is turning public and corporate > policy on its head. > > The apparent unwillingness of Jones and others at the ABC to give > airtime to a counterargument, the tactics used to minimise the > ostensible damage done by the film, the evident animosity towards > those who questioned global warming: all of this served to give > viewers a glimpse of what it was like for scientists who dared to > disagree with the hallowed doctrine. > > Why are the global warmers so zealous? After a year of arguing with > people about this, I am convinced that it's because global warming is > first and foremost a political theory. It is an expression of a whole > middle-class political world view. This view is summed up in the > oft-repeated phrase "we consume too much". I have also come to the > conclusion that this is code for "they consume too much". People who > believe it tend also to think that exotic foreign places are being > ruined because vulgar oiks can afford to go there in significant > numbers, they hate plastic toys from factories and prefer wooden ones > from craftsmen, and so on. > > All this backward-looking bigotry has found perfect expression in the > idea of man-made climate disaster. It has cohered a bunch of > disparate reactionary prejudices (anti-car, anti-supermarkets, > anti-globalisation) into a single unquestionable truth and cause. So > when you have a dig at global warming, you commit a grievous breach > of social etiquette. Among the chattering classes you're a leper. > > But why are the supporters of global warming so defensive? After all, > the middle classes are usually confident, bordering on smug. > > As I found when I examined the basic data, they have plenty to be > defensive about. Billions of dollars of public money have been thrown > at global warming, yet the hypothesis is crumbling around their ears. > > To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not > appear to be getting warmer. According to their own figures (from the > UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature > has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data > confirms this. This is clearly awkward. The least one should expect > of global warming is that the Earth should be getting warmer. > > Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global > warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide > and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to > mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature > leads, CO2 follows. > > Then there's the precious "hockey stick". This was the famous graph > that purported to show global temperature flat-lining for 1000 years, > then rising during the 19th and 20th centuries. It magicked away the > Medieval warm period and made the recent warming look alarming, > instead of just part of the general toing and froing of the Earth's climate. > > But then researchers took the computer program that produced the > hockey stick graph and fed it random data. Bingo, out popped hockey > stick shapes every time. (See the report by Edward Wegman of George > Mason University in Virginia and others.) > > In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey > stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore's movie. > > And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases > were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been > greater, higher up in the Earth's atmosphere (the bit known as the > troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact > opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly > contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change. > > They concede that CO2 cannot have caused the warming at the beginning > of the 20th century, which was greater and steeper than the recent > warming. They can't explain the cooling from 1940 to the mid-'70s. > What are they left with? Some mild warming in the '80s and '90s that > does not appear to have been caused by greenhouse gases. > > The whole damned theory is in tatters. No wonder they're defensive. > > The man-made global warming parade, on one level, has been a > phenomenal success. There isn't a political party or important public > body or large corporation that doesn't feel compelled to pay lip > service. There are scientists and journalists (a surprising number) > who have built careers championing the cause. There's more money > going into global warming research than there is chasing a cure for > cancer. Many important people and institutions have staked their > reputations on it. There's a lot riding on this theory. And it has > bugger-all to do with sea levels. That is why the warmers greeted my > film with red glowing eyes. > > Last week on the ABC they closed ranks. They were not interested in a > genuine debate. They wanted to shut it down. And thousands of > wonderful, sane, bolshie Australian viewers saw right through it. > > God bless Australia. The DVD will be out soon. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Mon Jul 23 08:09:09 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 01:09:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46A46225.30208@mac.com> Emlyn wrote: > Is anyone else as confused about Global Warming as I am? I can't get a > clear idea of whether it is real or not, and if so, whether it is > caused by human CO2 emissions or not. It's clearly important to get > this right, because > - if it's not real, we shouldn't be doing all this carbon emission handwringing > - if it is real and human caused, lowering carbon emissions is a good idea > - if it is real and not human caused, we still have a very scary > period ahead in which we need to do something else entirely to cope > with future rising sea levels and temperature increases. > > I have seen no good reason to doubt global warming is real. I have seen no good reason to doubt that human activities are strongly contributing to global warming. I don't see why this is complicated. - samantha From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jul 23 08:20:17 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:20:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070723082017.GC20274@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 04:53:51PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > Is anyone else as confused about Global Warming as I am? I can't get a > clear idea of whether it is real or not, and if so, whether it is This sounds as if you didn't have the time to hit the primary literature, and now are asking for popular press sound bites or consensus to help you figure out what is real or not. I suggest you take your time to read the primary literature. There is really no alternative to that. > caused by human CO2 emissions or not. It's clearly important to get > this right, because > - if it's not real, we shouldn't be doing all this carbon emission handwringing High-amplitude outcomes are *never* a good idea to dismiss out of hand. > - if it is real and human caused, lowering carbon emissions is a good idea > - if it is real and not human caused, we still have a very scary > period ahead in which we need to do something else entirely to cope > with future rising sea levels and temperature increases. How about we just seize this huge opportunity (when was the last time everybody was interested about the environment?) to get away from burning dead dinos? We certainly do have the money to burn on frivolous war-making. So if we want to make it happen, we can. Do we want to make it happen? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 11:45:02 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:45:02 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma In-Reply-To: <1f9101c7ccb2$32fc77c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1efa01c7cb48$1285a220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f9101c7ccb2$32fc77c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 23/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > If it was mainly the inability to anticipate future experiences I was > > worried about, a necessary effect of quasi-death and death, and I can > > convince myself that I should not be worried about it any more > > (because, for example, I would not be worried about the quasi-death of > > partial memory loss), then I should no longer be worried about either > > quasi-death or death. > > Does this mean that you suspect that the prospect of memory > erasure (say the last week's worth) would not prevent you from > anticipating the pleasures of a vacation to Hawaii planned for > later this year? That wouldn't be problematic in any case. If I forget everything about my past, too bad for my past self (who is now effectively dead) and too bad about the inconvenience, but from this point on, I am forging a new life for the new me. If, on the other had, I was forewarned that I would lose all memory of the next 24 hours, I would feel that in a sense the person I was *now* has only 24 hours to live. I would still make provisions for the person I will become after that - I would hope he would have done the same for me - but I wouldn't feel I could anticipate his experiences in the way I can my own, and I would probably feel nervous as the deadline approached. > > Not fearing death or quasi-death at all would be one consistent > > position. But perhaps I could revise what it is that I fear so that I > > no longer fear quasi-death but only fear death; > > And now: > > > quasi-death being when there are near copies remaining or to be > > created later, death being when there aren't and never will be. > > Thanks for a restatement of what you mean by *quasi-death* > (which seems to me quite helpful definition). > > > But if I am to accept that definition of death, it would seem that I > > should be as happy for past versions of myself to survive as future > > versions. > > Except for the relatively minor inconvenience, I suppose, of losing > a little memory. But basically, yes, it would seem that you should > (or could) be as happy for past version to survive. > > > Having past versions of myself eliminated isn't normally an > > option, but the thought experiment in another post in which I consider > > a model of a block universe in parallel computers provides just such > > an opportunity, and I would selfishly sacrifice all my past selves to > > gain any extra runtime for my future selves. > > Although it is very interesting, it seems to me that the idea of > actually eliding past runtime is a separate issue from our anxieties > over impending memory loss. But I guess I see now what you > really meant by "past versions of myself to survive". > > You seem to be using "to survive" as meaning to "get runtime", > and in the sense of denying a past self his runtime (in your bombing > scenario), whereas I usually think of "to survive" as whether from > a given point the future solar system will host "you". But you still seem to be preferring future runtime to past runtime. One way you could justify this is by saying that past runtime can't be "lost", so you need only focus on the future if your ultimate strategy is to maximise total runtime. However, in my bombing scenario that isn't so: you could as easily lose the past as the future, and in either case the total loss of runtime would be the same. Would you therefore say it is no worse to lose the next decade as the last decade to the bombers? -- Stathis Papaioannou From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 12:02:44 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:32:44 +0930 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <20070723082017.GC20274@leitl.org> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> <20070723082017.GC20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: <710b78fc0707230502mb6ef3afr45d367f72db00c95@mail.gmail.com> On 23/07/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 04:53:51PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > > Is anyone else as confused about Global Warming as I am? I can't get a > > clear idea of whether it is real or not, and if so, whether it is > > This sounds as if you didn't have the time to hit the primary > literature, and now are asking for popular press sound bites > or consensus to help you figure out what is real or not. Well, this stuff is certainly well outside my educational background (comp + maths), so the primary literature is something I'm not really aware of, and probably not well equipped to understand. Possibly I should bone up on this stuff :-) As to popular press, you're giving the exi list more credit than it deserves here, or less, depending on your point of view. I was actually hoping someone with more of a clue than me might have something to say. But also, I was equally hoping to get a feel for whether others are feeling similarly confused. > > I suggest you take your time to read the primary literature. > There is really no alternative to that. Yes, I think you're correct. Somehow, this issue, which seems pretty clearly a technical one, has been hijacked by politics (people seem now to attach a "left" or "right" tag to the various positions, a dead giveaway), which means that pretty much all the secondary analysis you can find becomes suspect. Bugger. > > > caused by human CO2 emissions or not. It's clearly important to get > > this right, because > > - if it's not real, we shouldn't be doing all this carbon emission handwringing > > High-amplitude outcomes are *never* a good idea to dismiss out of hand. > > > - if it is real and human caused, lowering carbon emissions is a good idea > > - if it is real and not human caused, we still have a very scary > > period ahead in which we need to do something else entirely to cope > > with future rising sea levels and temperature increases. > > How about we just seize this huge opportunity (when was the last time > everybody was interested about the environment?) to get away from burning > dead dinos? > > We certainly do have the money to burn on frivolous war-making. > So if we want to make it happen, we can. Do we want to make it happen? Well, hang on. Burning fossil fuels has some bad consequences, but also has some benefits. Global warming should only count as a minus if it actually is. If it isn't a problem and we act as though it is, not only could we be rushing away from fossil fuels without it being necessary. I think it probably is a good idea to get away from them, so I'm not so worried about that. However, I'm more interested in the possibility that global warming is not human generated. If that's the case, and we're busy decreasing carbon emissions, it's still going to happen. If the consequences of global warming are what they are touted to be, and I've no reason to suspect they're not, then we need to do something about it, regardless of whether it's man made or "natural". Natural disasters are still disasters, after all. (I do think a clue to the suspect nature of the anti-global warming camp is that there seems to be an effort to show that global warming is not man made, and the inference made that therefore there is no problem. That inference is what you would make if you were just trying to refute someone's position, rather that if you were dispassionately trying to assess the state of things) If warming isn't caused by people, but is due to natural cycles, we've got a whole new problem - bad stuff coming, and no clear idea of how to fix it. Emlyn From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 12:12:23 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:42:23 +0930 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <61c8738e0707210843x544df471ja6482c1fae2c6f6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <61c8738e0707210843x544df471ja6482c1fae2c6f6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> I wouldn't be so quick to say this is unequivocably good, whether or not it is correct to decrease carbon emissions. I think on balance it probably is good. I'd really love to see alternative forms of energy become prevalent, and I'd *love* to see energy production decentralise. However, there seems to be somewhat of a memeplex out there that includes not only modern green-consciousness, but also anti "progress", anti science and anti rational positions. Admitedly this is just conjecture on my part, but I feel like there's an anti-humanism that goes with the green movement, an assumption that things we do to improve the lot of humans through scientific investigation are immediately suspect, a kind of evil. I'm absolutely not saying this is universal - a lot of people care about the environment these days, too many to talk in simple generalisations. But surely, others here have noticed the same thing? Don't you notice that the kinds of people heavily concerned about environmental issues are the same people that react particularly negatively to transhumanist ideas? Emlyn On 22/07/07, Morris Johnson wrote: > I agree, but as I said it is a good scam as the result is global industrial > bioeconomy > with the taxpayer on the hook for a good part of it. > > The bioeconomy will be accelerated greatly by this "green" boom. > > As I see it , we must understand at least one phase of global weather > trends > before going the next step, global weather control/managment. > > As I said before, the first singularity magnitude mega-problem is to design > a global > weather control mechanism. > > While anti-aging and self directed evolution are also singularity scale > projects, they > are personal and can be undertaken "in the shadows". > > Managing the energy inputs and outputs that comprise the first global scale > mega project will be the first sign that that earth's "bio-film" can > self-optimize > its global energy production and consumption cycles. > > > -- > LIFESPAN PHARMA Inc. > Extropian Agroforestry Ventures Inc. > 306-447-4944, 701-240-9411 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 23 13:09:06 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:09:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.co m> References: <61c8738e0707210843x544df471ja6482c1fae2c6f6e@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070723080502.02536bd8@satx.rr.com> At 09:42 PM 7/23/2007 +0930, Emlyn wrote: >Don't you notice that the kinds of people heavily concerned about >environmental issues are the same people that react particularly >negatively to transhumanist ideas? Eugen's own tt list recently posted an url to: Josie Appleton: Measuring the political temperature http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/3406/ < Today's 'global warming story' - where morality equates to carbon calculating - owes more to the anxious zeitgeist than scientific findings. > A piece definitely worth reading carefully. My pal Gregory Benford applauded Appleton's essay, and commented: Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 23 13:12:54 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:12:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <46A46225.30208@mac.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> <46A46225.30208@mac.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070723081011.02524998@satx.rr.com> At 01:09 AM 7/23/2007 -0700, Samantha wrote: >I have seen no good reason to doubt global warming is real. I have seen >no good reason to doubt that human activities are strongly contributing >to global warming. I don't see why this is complicated. Do you mean you didn't read the following (e.g.), which I posted in launching this thread, or you're claiming it's all spin and bullshit? If the latter, what is your substantiation? Damien Broderick From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 14:52:14 2007 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:52:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ad6af70707230752s6f9bd652r8e3d7d7685ef71a8@mail.gmail.com> On 7/23/07, Emlyn wrote: > Is anyone else as confused about Global Warming as I am? I can't get a > clear idea of whether it is real or not, and if so, whether it is > caused by human CO2 emissions or not. It's clearly important to get > this right, because > - if it's not real, we shouldn't be doing all this carbon emission handwringing > - if it is real and human caused, lowering carbon emissions is a good idea > - if it is real and not human caused, we still have a very scary > period ahead in which we need to do something else entirely to cope > with future rising sea levels and temperature increases. > > Emlyn Your message has prompted me to go out looking for some literature and resources, and so the following is what I have found. The Wikipedia article is the most helpful, actually, with 150~ references, and supposedly a good overview of what's going on- I imagine that lots of political activists are very set on keeping their claims on the wiki pages, since it's such a "hot" topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/GLBLWARM.HTM (1996) http://www.eh-resources.org/biblio_climate.html http://whyfiles.org/080global_warm/biblio.html http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/OZ/oz-bib.html http://www.epl.org/library/bibliographies/planet-care.html ("planet care" ?) - Bryan From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Jul 23 15:56:59 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:56:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm Message-ID: <20070723085659.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.a9c697ae8c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Jul 23 16:41:26 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:41:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <61c8738e0707210843x544df471ja6482c1fae2c6f6e@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43888.72.236.102.82.1185208886.squirrel@main.nc.us> Emlyn writes: > I wouldn't be so quick to say this is unequivocably good, whether or > not it is correct to decrease carbon emissions. I think on balance it > probably is good. I'd really love to see alternative forms of energy > become prevalent, and I'd *love* to see energy production > decentralise. Certainly agree with you here. :) > > However, there seems to be somewhat of a memeplex out there that > includes not only modern green-consciousness, but also anti > "progress", anti science and anti rational positions. Admitedly this > is just conjecture on my part, but I feel like there's an > anti-humanism that goes with the green movement, an assumption that > things we do to improve the lot of humans through scientific > investigation are immediately suspect, a kind of evil. That is *very* prevalent where I live. It's discouraging. With some folks this attitude is almost religious in intensity. > > I'm absolutely not saying this is universal - a lot of people care > about the environment these days, too many to talk in simple > generalisations. But surely, others here have noticed the same thing? > Don't you notice that the kinds of people heavily concerned about > environmental issues are the same people that react particularly > negatively to transhumanist ideas? > They're not ready to do away with eyeglasses or tooth repair, but they sure do talk "hate" for modern medicine and medical and scientific advancements. All should be done through 'vibrations' or 'healing thoughts' or 'color therapy'... (Example: There is no comprehension of vaccines and how they work within a population. Childhood immunizations are considered an evil which is to be avoided. If there's an fearfgul myth about them out there, some of these folks believe it like gospel, and no explanation of the science will help.) Some greens think humans are a plague on the planet - which, if I spend a day in the midst of a crowd, I sometimes feel, myself. ;) So, yes, Emlyn, I see what you describe. It's here in my neighborhood. It's very discouraging. And highly political. Accuracy and facts do not seem to be part of the discussions. It's all "feelings". Regards, MB From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 17:01:55 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:01:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Affecting Past Experience In-Reply-To: <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> Stathis writes > > My original experiment could conceivably be modelled without the need > > for godlike powers. Suppose I am informed that I am living in a > > computer simulation of a special kind. My whole life from birth to > > death has been determined, and is being run in real time in day long > > sections simultaneously on geographically separated computers, one > > computer for each day of my life, so that the whole thing is over and > > done with in a single day in the real world. I am also aware that > > these computers are the focus of a bombing campaign by forces who > > believe sentient software is blasphemous. > Interesting, but it doesn't quite work as stated. Initial state for day T + 1 = final state for day T. Therefore, the whole thing must have been run sequentially first, to create the series of initial states. Now on day T you are given this news. But for the simulation to be valid, for final state T to be initial state T + 1, you must have been given this news in the original setup, back when the sequential run was being done and the terrorist group hadn't yet forsaken political methods for violence. But that means when you were first given this news, it was false. So... is there even a fact of the matter as to whether it's true or false "for you"? The general conclusion I draw from this is that doing funky things with time/metatime isn't necessarily invalid, but it has a lot of subtle pitfalls that need to be looked out for. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Mon Jul 23 16:53:47 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:53:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm Message-ID: <20070723095347.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.6fd03220e5.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Jul 23 17:56:46 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <20070723095347.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.6fd03220e5.wbe@email. secureserver.net> References: <20070723095347.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.6fd03220e5.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <43930.72.236.102.82.1185213406.squirrel@main.nc.us> > I don't experience a lot of that around here, but I know it is out > there. You seem to have a good handle on it. I always understood that feelings that > don't utilize actualy thought are held on to because they have some kind of > emotional "gain". Do you have an idea of what they gain emotionally from those > "feelings"? My first response is that folks are comforting themselves with warm fuzzies. They have little to offer of substance. This vibrations/thoughts/colors mystical type stuff is something they can *do*, be part of, without training or skill. A sense of personal power and personal contribution? However, that is a bit mean of me. I have nothing to offer either. Many (by *no means* all) are careful in their use of resources and try (in the limited American fashion) to leave a "small" footprint. Which is a Good Thing (tm) for the resources. (I'm careful because of finances, mostly!) There's a goodly number who are supporting themselves financially by getting on this bandwagon of fear. And they do not (for good reason) say anything against what they are promoting in their work. Who knows what they really think? There's money to be made! There's too much hype and excitement. It makes me very suspicious. Regards, MB From sondre-list at bjellas.com Mon Jul 23 16:29:58 2007 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:29:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <20070723085659.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.a9c697ae8c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20070723085659.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.a9c697ae8c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <02a001c7cd46$b8231460$28693d20$@com> We have not had this bad summer weather in 150 years (south Norway). I was hoping global warming would give us hotter and better climate, but boy was I wrong it?s the end of July and I?m FREEZING ON MY LEGS in my own apartment. And I?m fully dressed! Time to migrate somewhere else suggestions? From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of kevin at kevinfreels.com Sent: 23. juli 2007 17:57 To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm The Earth is getting warmer. This is good for some things - bad for others. The biggest fear is CHANGE. But the stability that we imagine isn't real in the first place. The main concern with the warming itself is whether we can manage to maintain our way of life if the world were to have a dramatic increase or decrease in temperature in a short period of time. I have no doubt that we could learn to deal with nearly any result of global warming, but the cost is a different issue. If it were severe enough it would set back technological development in many areas such as life extension while money is poured into simple survival. This in itself couold possibly have some benefits as well though. Whether or not it is caused by human emissions really doesn't matter. Spewing millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere as we burn fossil fuels can't be good and will only occur until the fossil fuels run out. So regardless of global warming, we need to get off of the fossil fuel dependency. Renewable energy sources which produce carbon emissions are a limited short-term solution as they trap carbon as they grow, but release it again when it burns. It's still better than digging up carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years. So I wouldn't worry too much about global warming. But I would just try to be aware no to make that and other problems worse by being irresponsible and wasteful. Not only does this help the world, it will help your own pocket-book. Drive a fuel-efficient vehicle, use energy efficient appliances, and simply use what energy is needed to get the job done and no more. And support research into other solutions if you have the extra cash left from the energy you saved. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm From: "Bryan Bishop" Date: Mon, July 23, 2007 7:52 am To: "ExI chat list" On 7/23/07, Emlyn > wrote: > Is anyone else as confused about Global Warming as I am? I can't get a > clear idea of whether it is real or not, and if so, whether it is > caused by human CO2 emissions or not. It's clearly important to get > this right, because > - if it's not real, we shouldn't be doing all this carbon emission handwringing > - if it is real and human caused, lowering carbon emissions is a good idea > - if it is real and not human caused, we still have a very scary > period ahead in which we need to do something else entirely to cope > with future rising sea levels and temperature increases. > > Emlyn Your message has prompted me to go out looking for some literature and resources, and so the following is what I have found. The Wikipedia article is the most helpful, actually, with 150~ references, and supposedly a good overview of what's going on- I imagine that lots of political activists are very set on keeping their claims on the wiki pages, since it's such a "hot" topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/GLBLWARM.HTM (1996) http://www.eh-resources.org/biblio_climate.html http://whyfiles.org/080global_warm/biblio.html http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/OZ/oz-bib.html http://www.epl.org/library/bibliographies/planet-care.html ("planet care" ?) - Bryan _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Jul 23 20:04:38 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:04:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "The Progressive Apocalypse and Other Futurismic Delights" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070718154431.021fc1e0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070718154431.021fc1e0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070723150323.022179b0@satx.rr.com> At 03:46 PM 7/18/2007 -0500, I url'd: > A very strange comment has been posted by one "Alan": At Friday, July 20, 2007 11:01:00 PM, Alan said... Excellent article, and more of them ought to be done-- assuming the unintended consequence is not to draw impressionables to futurology. Since i was friends with FM 2030, a cryonically suspended futurist/transhumanist let this be said: first his good points: intelligent; kind; patient (for his age, 69 at the time of suspension-- rather early for a transhumanist one might say) and all the rest. Two of FM's negative aspects: 1) optimistic to the point of smarminess; he argued too much, and too naively, for a cooperatively in-tune futurist. Natasha Vita More excused this as coming from an older man (shall we in PC-talk say an age challenged transhumanist) but you can be 100 percent certain he was always that way, even as a child, you don't get at all far up the food chain by being too civilized, not if you're male. His positive outweighed his negative, but what negatives he had! Enough to turn you into a Luddite. My real message here to you younger people is: PLEASE do not be naive as it not only wastes your time-- which unlike wealth you cannot get back-- but can even shorten your life by bringing you to grief. Put this message in your mental hard drive and do not lose it. Don't ever become a futurist, instead invest in knick-knacks or crochet doilies while watching Andy Griffith or I Love Lucy. From emohamad at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 21:00:07 2007 From: emohamad at gmail.com (Elaa Mohamad) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:00:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm Message-ID: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:20:17 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > How about we just seize this huge opportunity (when was the last time > everybody was interested about the environment?) to get away from burning > dead dinos? When was the last time everybody had a reason to be interested in the environment? > We certainly do have the money to burn on frivolous war-making. > So if we want to make it happen, we can. Do you really believe that? If so, _how_ do we make it happen? >Do we want to make it happen? I believe the right question to ask is: How do we ensure the discontinuation of current practices will bring about more benefits for the decision makers (resources, power, etc.) than simply continuing the dead dino burning extravaganza. Mind, the motivation doesn't have to be only positive reinforcement - if the decision makers see they are losing on the polls or their accountant frowning... Well, they'll move one way or another. And as a poet said: "Change is good for any of us." Eli From jonkc at att.net Mon Jul 23 20:50:03 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:50:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005801c7cd6b$15999550$2a0a4e0c@MyComputer> "Emlyn" > I can't get a clear idea of whether it is real or not It is almost certainly real > and if so, whether it is caused by human CO2 emissions or not. A significant part of it is probably caused by humans. Probably. > It's clearly important to get this right Not it is not, compared with about a dozen other issues it is of trivial importance. Besides, the only way to significantly reduce CO2 levels would be so barbarically draconian that it will simply never happen so there is no point wasting valuable brain cells contemplating the matter. John K Clark From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 24 04:27:26 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:27:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200707240437.l6O4bx0f020384@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn ... > > However, there seems to be somewhat of a memeplex out there that > includes not only modern green-consciousness, but also anti > "progress", anti science and anti rational positions. Admitedly this > is just conjecture on my part, but I feel like there's an > anti-humanism that goes with the green movement, an assumption that > things we do to improve the lot of humans through scientific > investigation are immediately suspect, a kind of evil... Emlyn Astute observations all. Emlyn, the discussion on this topic seems to center around two questions: 1. Is global warming real? 2. Is it human made? But this discussion ignores a third question, or rather assumes an answer: 3. Is global warming good? Previously I have argued that in many ways it is good, but now I realize this is very much an understatement. If human population grows the way I expect it will, global warming might be our salvation, it might save our species. We are after all a warm climate species, Africans that have managed to spread everywhere. One of the side effects of global warming upon which most agree is longer growing seasons. We can easily envision a wetter planet where plants grow better because of more CO2 in the air. If we can imagine Earth with 30 to 50 billion inhabitants in place of our current paltry 6 to 7 billion, we will desperately need to put all the available land to work making food for all those humans. As Emlyn as observed, progress is often seen as a kind of evil. I see it as a kind of righteousness. The current exclusive focus on the down side of global warming is a kind of evil. Consider for instance the losers in the global warming deal: penguins and polar bears. If human population does what I expect, these beasts would long since have been devoured before the last ice disappears. Or if not devoured, then slain because they are carnivorous, and eat the same things we eat, and are therefore competitors for a limited food supply. If we look at those humans that live in low lying countries such as Bangladesh, we must consider the fact that as human populations grow, these countries would need to import massive amounts of food anyway, so longer growing seasons help them too. Living elsewhere of course. Regarding the first two questions above, we could construct orthogonal axes dividing a thought-plane into quadrants. If we add the third question on another orthogonal axis, we divide space into octants. I am definitely in the half of space that is cheering for global warming. As to the first two questions, I am not sure they are true, but in both cases, I certainly hope so. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Jul 24 04:36:46 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:36:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <20070723085659.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.a9c697ae8c.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <200707240447.l6O4lpHC007436@lily.ziaspace.com> ... Spewing millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere as we burn fossil fuels can't be good...Kevin How do you know that for sure Kevin? We may need to dig up every atom of sequestered carbon we can find, toss it into the air to make it available for plant matter, which we need to devour in order to survive. Spewing millions of tons of carbon might be good indeed, furthermore it might be necessary for our survival in the numbers I can easily imagine. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 05:23:07 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:53:07 +0930 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <200707240437.l6O4bx0f020384@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> <200707240437.l6O4bx0f020384@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0707232223l2b27734wb63df01c29d4b4eb@mail.gmail.com> On 24/07/07, spike wrote: > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn > ... > > > > However, there seems to be somewhat of a memeplex out there that > > includes not only modern green-consciousness, but also anti > > "progress", anti science and anti rational positions. Admitedly this > > is just conjecture on my part, but I feel like there's an > > anti-humanism that goes with the green movement, an assumption that > > things we do to improve the lot of humans through scientific > > investigation are immediately suspect, a kind of evil... Emlyn > > Astute observations all. > > Emlyn, the discussion on this topic seems to center around two questions: > > 1. Is global warming real? > 2. Is it human made? > > But this discussion ignores a third question, or rather assumes an answer: > > 3. Is global warming good? > > Previously I have argued that in many ways it is good, but now I realize > this is very much an understatement. If human population grows the way I > expect it will, global warming might be our salvation, it might save our > species. We are after all a warm climate species, Africans that have > managed to spread everywhere. In fact, I think Jarred Diamond talked about this idea in Collapse. It seems like a lot of civilisations expanded in the warm times, then crashed when it cooled, and iirc, he postulated a fluctuating warming and cooling. eg: Viking Greenland was settled in a warm period, then crashed (slowly, to their credit!) in the little ice age. So if we are having a warming, maybe it is a good thing. It'll have some problems of course, but I'm willing to buy the idea that this is more complex than warm=bad. Emlyn From neville070 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 17 00:03:21 2007 From: neville070 at yahoo.com (Neville L) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716184138.02237098@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <392472.15255.qm@web45310.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Gas still costs less per gallon than milk. Not unlike sucking out oil that won't be replenished so you can drive for half an hour to pick up a loaf of white bread. True, we can hope the kids develop some cool magic physics that will fix it up some day. Damien Broderick --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nymphomation at gmail.com Sat Jul 21 18:29:05 2007 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (Nymph0) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:29:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7e1e56ce0707211129g28f71066x5100e621c1b0d54f@mail.gmail.com> On 20/07/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > > Martin Durkin says his British documentary rejecting the idea of > human-caused global warming has survived last week's roasting by the > ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation]| July 21, 2007 Well he would, wouldn't he..? Let's see what people have said about his mockumentaries in the past: "In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast Durkin's documentary series - Against Nature which criticized the environmental movement for being a threat to personal freedom and for crippling economic development. .. However the Commission also concluded that Durkin had misled his interviewees about the nature and purpose of the documentary, and that he had misrepresented and distorted their views by editing the interview footage in a misleading way. For these reasons, Channel 4 later issued a public apology on prime time TV." "Subsequent television documentaries by Durkin aired as Equinox programs which include a 1998 documentary entitled "Storm in a D-Cup" which argued that silicone breast implants were in fact beneficial to a woman's health; another Equinox program called Modified Truth: The Rise and Fall of GM, and The Great Global Warming Swindle. The 1998 documentary on breast implants was shown on Channel 4 only after it had been rejected for broadcast by the BBC whose in-house researcher concluded that Durkin had ignored a large body of evidence contradicting his claims in the program. .. Criticising the program, George Monbiot wrote "Neither Martin Durkin nor, extraordinarily, Charles Furneaux, the commissioning editor of the science series Equinox, has a science background. They don't need one, for science on Channel 4 has been reduced to a crude manifesto for corporate libertarianism." Viz 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' "The overwhelming majority of the scientific community was highly critical of the film. It was compared more to a work of propaganda than a work of a science, mainly for it's selective use of data that contribute to the arguments shown and discarding all those that do not. All the alleged arguments for global warming presented in the film can be countered (or even debunked) by scientific data that has been left out of the film." Carl Wunsch said "I'm somewhat troubled that TV companies around the world are treating it as though this were a science documentary. It's not. It's a tendentious political propaganda piece... It's not a science film at all. It's a political statement." He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." Ad infinitum.. > WHEN I agreed to make The Great Global Warming Swindle, I was warned > a middle-class fatwa would be placed on my head. He's been making these half-arsed films for years, he didn't need anyone to tell him what the reaction would be. > Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global > warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide > and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to > mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature > leads, CO2 follows. No it's a feedback loop. CO2 leads to slight temperature rise, which releases a huge amount of CO2 from the ocean which leads to even greater temperature rises, etc, etc.. > The whole damned theory is in tatters. No wonder they're defensive. It's actually Durkin's reputation that is in tatters. The scientific consensus is consolidating on the theory &now that the mainstream consider it a problem, the science is moving on to find solutions. > The man-made global warming parade, on one level, has been a > phenomenal success. There isn't a political party or important public > body or large corporation that doesn't feel compelled to pay lip > service. There are scientists and journalists (a surprising number) > who have built careers championing the cause. There's more money > going into global warming research than there is chasing a cure for > cancer. Many important people and institutions have staked their > reputations on it. There's a lot riding on this theory. Funny, a lot of people think that political lobby group the 'Institute of Ideas' aka Living Marxism group aka the Revolutionary Communist Party have a lot riding on the conspiracy theories espoused by Durkin's films. Laughed out of the UK they're evidently now selling their 'product' to the colonies.. =:o) Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation 'the patient was, in ambulance speak, purple plus' http://www.neenaw.co.uk From nymphomation at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 21:31:59 2007 From: nymphomation at gmail.com (Nymph0) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:31:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7e1e56ce0707231431h2881ad34n105dfc7c1091e733@mail.gmail.com> On 23/07/07, Elaa Mohamad wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:20:17 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > How about we just seize this huge opportunity (when was the last time > > everybody was interested about the environment?) to get away from burning > > dead dinos? > > When was the last time everybody had a reason to be interested in the > environment? Scandinavians in the 1970s viz a vie acid rain, for one. Before that the killer London smog of the 1950s. My mother is one of those hippy dippy ambulance chasing scientists who worked at Fuel Research Station in Greenwich, monitoring the clean up. =;o) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952 HTH Heavy splashings, Thee Nymphomation 'the patient was, in ambulance speak, purple plus' http://www.neenaw.co.uk From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jul 24 06:43:30 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:43:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:00:07PM +0200, Elaa Mohamad wrote: > When was the last time everybody had a reason to be interested in the > environment? http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/envhist/ > > We certainly do have the money to burn on frivolous war-making. > > So if we want to make it happen, we can. > > Do you really believe that? I certainly believe that if you can destroy value to the tune of more than a terabuck (and counting) that that value was expendable, by definition. (Whether there's considerably more where that came from is an open question). > If so, _how_ do we make it happen? A first good step would be stop spending terabucks on breaking things and start spending terabucks on making things. > >Do we want to make it happen? > > I believe the right question to ask is: How do we ensure the > discontinuation of current practices will bring about more benefits > for the decision makers (resources, power, etc.) than simply > continuing the dead dino burning extravaganza. Too rational. People first have to want things, and that then things start to move, and only then do benefits materialize (or fail to). > Mind, the motivation doesn't have to be only positive reinforcement - > if the decision makers see they are losing on the polls or their A lot more accountability is in order. Unfortunately, currently people are politically apathetic, and that's one of the reasons some of them can get away with breaking things to the tune of more than a terabuck. > accountant frowning... Well, they'll move one way or another. And as a > poet said: "Change is good for any of us." -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jul 24 06:47:18 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:47:18 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707232223l2b27734wb63df01c29d4b4eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> <200707240437.l6O4bx0f020384@lily.ziaspace.com> <710b78fc0707232223l2b27734wb63df01c29d4b4eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070724064718.GK20274@leitl.org> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:53:07PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > So if we are having a warming, maybe it is a good thing. It'll have > some problems of course, but I'm willing to buy the idea that this is > more complex than warm=bad. Rapid climate change -> precipitation shifts -> famine -> conflict/migration. Plenty bad. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sondre-list at bjellas.com Tue Jul 24 07:45:37 2007 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:45:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] water control In-Reply-To: <392472.15255.qm@web45310.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070716184138.02237098@satx.rr.com> <392472.15255.qm@web45310.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <030101c7cdc6$a11cdaf0$e35690d0$@com> Too bad that is only a reality in the USA and some other special countries. Gas prices is double in Norway, and car prices is triple. Too few Americans realize there are people living outside their borders (especially corporations) :) From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Neville L Sent: 17. juli 2007 02:03 To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] water control Gas still costs less per gallon than milk. ?Not unlike sucking out oil that won't be replenished so you can drive for half an hour to pick up a loaf of white bread. True, we can hope the kids develop some cool magic physics that will fix it up some day. Damien Broderick ________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. From sondre-list at bjellas.com Tue Jul 24 07:42:56 2007 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:42:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <200707240437.l6O4bx0f020384@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> <200707240437.l6O4bx0f020384@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <030001c7cdc6$411f0880$c35d1980$@com> Once again I just want to say that we have not had as bad summer in 150 years (south Norway). This means our growing season is very much reduced. Strawberries which are usually very good at this time, taste like sand and .. eeh .. don't want to eat any more, it's crap. Norway is normally very good at producing great quality food that has little pesticide, but if this weather keeps up I would think we will be required to import more low-grade quality food that has way to much pesticide and antibiotics. Not a good situation.... http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/idso-lau041706.php "Norway has never licensed their use in food animals, and both countries have reported low trends--similar to Australia's--in fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infecting humans." 1. There is no doubt that global warming is real. 2. There is no real evidence that human waste has any effect on it. 3. Most people would say change is bad, but I say it's good. My 50 cents :) -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: 24. juli 2007 06:27 To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn ... > > However, there seems to be somewhat of a memeplex out there that > includes not only modern green-consciousness, but also anti > "progress", anti science and anti rational positions. Admitedly this > is just conjecture on my part, but I feel like there's an > anti-humanism that goes with the green movement, an assumption that > things we do to improve the lot of humans through scientific > investigation are immediately suspect, a kind of evil... Emlyn Astute observations all. Emlyn, the discussion on this topic seems to center around two questions: 1. Is global warming real? 2. Is it human made? But this discussion ignores a third question, or rather assumes an answer: 3. Is global warming good? Previously I have argued that in many ways it is good, but now I realize this is very much an understatement. If human population grows the way I expect it will, global warming might be our salvation, it might save our species. We are after all a warm climate species, Africans that have managed to spread everywhere. One of the side effects of global warming upon which most agree is longer growing seasons. We can easily envision a wetter planet where plants grow better because of more CO2 in the air. If we can imagine Earth with 30 to 50 billion inhabitants in place of our current paltry 6 to 7 billion, we will desperately need to put all the available land to work making food for all those humans. As Emlyn as observed, progress is often seen as a kind of evil. I see it as a kind of righteousness. The current exclusive focus on the down side of global warming is a kind of evil. Consider for instance the losers in the global warming deal: penguins and polar bears. If human population does what I expect, these beasts would long since have been devoured before the last ice disappears. Or if not devoured, then slain because they are carnivorous, and eat the same things we eat, and are therefore competitors for a limited food supply. If we look at those humans that live in low lying countries such as Bangladesh, we must consider the fact that as human populations grow, these countries would need to import massive amounts of food anyway, so longer growing seasons help them too. Living elsewhere of course. Regarding the first two questions above, we could construct orthogonal axes dividing a thought-plane into quadrants. If we add the third question on another orthogonal axis, we divide space into octants. I am definitely in the half of space that is cheering for global warming. As to the first two questions, I am not sure they are true, but in both cases, I certainly hope so. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 11:09:49 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:09:49 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Affecting Past Experience In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 24/07/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > Stathis writes > > > > My original experiment could conceivably be modelled without the need > > > for godlike powers. Suppose I am informed that I am living in a > > > computer simulation of a special kind. My whole life from birth to > > > death has been determined, and is being run in real time in day long > > > sections simultaneously on geographically separated computers, one > > > computer for each day of my life, so that the whole thing is over and > > > done with in a single day in the real world. I am also aware that > > > these computers are the focus of a bombing campaign by forces who > > > believe sentient software is blasphemous. > > > > Interesting, but it doesn't quite work as stated. > > Initial state for day T + 1 = final state for day T. Therefore, the whole > thing must have been run sequentially first, to create the series of initial > states. > > Now on day T you are given this news. But for the simulation to be valid, > for final state T to be initial state T + 1, you must have been given this > news in the original setup, back when the sequential run was being done and > the terrorist group hadn't yet forsaken political methods for violence. > > But that means when you were first given this news, it was false. So... is > there even a fact of the matter as to whether it's true or false "for you"? It is common knowledge before the simulation was ever conceived that the bombing group is only a threat to the widely dispersed parallel computers. I can't know if I am living in the first sequential run, which would not have been bombed, or in the subsequent parallel run, parts of which might yet be bombed at any moment. If the latter, I hope that the future turns out to be safer than the past. This example was for Lee, who believes that all else being equal, more total runtime is good; so that for example if he could somehow arrange for the next month of his life to be run in parallel somewhere, and assuming that life remains on balance worth living, he would jump at the opportunity (let me know, Lee, if I have this wrong). However, I disagree about the utility of parallel runtime, other than as backup or as weighting when there are competing negative experiences. If I could double my absolute measure in the multiverse in the next month, it won't do me any good at all, because none of the copies of me will experience anything any differently. You might say, but there will be more copies having experiences who otherwise would not exist. But if you ask any of these copies, what they are interested in is surviving to the next moment (the next observer moment, in Nick Bostrom's terminology) and the the one after that, and the one after that, and so on. All that is necessary for this to happen is that a next observer moment exist somewhere in the universe. It makes no difference to a copy that there are multiple instances of such successor observer moments, because he can only experience one at a time. If there are ten equivalent candidate successor observer moments he will find himself experiencing one of the ten, while if there is only one he will experience that one; in either case, he is guaranteed one extra moment of exactly the same experience. Returning to the original example, even though I cannot be sure whether my present observer moment is in the sequential or the parallel run, I can be sure that my *next* observer moment will be from either run with equal probability if the relevant parallel computer is not destroyed, or from the sequential run with certainty if the relevant parallel computer is destroyed. Either way, my subjective future is guaranteed because at least the first run is guaranteed. There is a case where parallel runtime is useful: if I am facing are at least two equally well qualified future branches, I would want the more pleasant branch to be more heavily weighted in runtime, since that would mean I am more likely to find myself as one of the copies in that branch. -- Stathis Papaioannou From kevin at kevinfreels.com Tue Jul 24 15:39:34 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:39:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm Message-ID: <20070724083934.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.a4aa418ce1.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neilh at caltech.edu Wed Jul 25 01:11:12 2007 From: neilh at caltech.edu (Neil Halelamien) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:11:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? Message-ID: The article is pretty scant on details and I haven't been able to find outside confirmation yet, but it sounds like it could be interesting: http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nextnews7.24b.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 25 06:05:11 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:05:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Affecting Past Experience References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <201a01c7ce82$32858530$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes >> I don't really know why you care more about these discrete *future* >> days than you do about the *past* ones. If tomorrow is a day that >> gets bombed..., then you'll simply not >> experience that. But the day after tomorrow and all the days >> beyond, it will be exactly the same as if tomorrow happened. >> (Actually, were I scheduled for root canal surgery for tomorrow, >> then I would even hope that it got bombed!) > > This brings up another twist in that you wouldn't know if every second > day of your life, or an even larger proportion, did not actually > occur. Yes. If we grant that "knowing" is an act requiring runtime, then to know that a past day really occurred (or *assume* that it did where assuming is also a thinking type experience) does, of course, necessitate that I get some "on" days (to use your term) to reflect on it. > Would you agree to be given some advantage on your "on" days if > you gave up a proportion of your future runtime as "off" days? Yes. I'd try to frame the calculation (estimate/guess, really) in terms of total benefit I receive. Some days are neutral, in that it seems I would have been no better off and no worse off if they had not actually been experienced by me (i.e., did not actually) occur, with me retaining only the (false) memories of them. Other days are so positive that they deliver as much benefit as many, many mediocre days. >> > In fact, I would prefer that all my past days be destroyed if it could >> > save one future day, even though that way the total runtime of all >> > instances of me is reduced. >> >> Evidently you and I simply calculate these things differently. I would >> not like losing some actual very pleasant day in my past (retaining >> only the memories). True, I cannot tell if it gets bombed or not, >> but I have the intellectual knowledge that my life as a whole was >> worse off for not having really experienced that day. > > The intellectual knowledge would be worth something, but it wouldn't > be worth as much as actual future experiences. Would you give up the > last ten years for the next ten years, if your and everyone else's > memories of the last ten years remained unchanged? Again, I guess I just don't see actual future days being any more valuable than actual past days. The tendency, yes, is to favor future days because we get to anticipate them, but I myself reject anticipation as a solid foundation for making decisions. Mike Dougherty had written > I was thinking about your Anticipation Dilemma. If you should be eagerly > anticipating the dinner you ate last night because some earlier point-in-time > version of yourself has not yet eaten it and you must embrace the > anticipation of all your selves. and I should hasten to add that this characterization, although informally valuable, does lack the feature of my more complicated thought experiment because past selves are not normally memory supersets. In my original post http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-July/036873.html, which lays out the whole thing, quite a bit of juggling and not a few assumptions were necessary to get a memory superset into the actual past. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 25 06:27:57 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:27:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1d9c01c7c85c$1495b350$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1efa01c7cb48$1285a220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f9101c7ccb2$32fc77c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <202101c7ce85$015cce20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > If I forget everything about my past, too bad for my past > self (who is now effectively dead) and too bad about the > inconvenience, but from this point on, I am forging a new life > for the new me. Whereas I regard such catastropic amnesia as equivalent to dying. The "new me" that you refer to I regard as a different person almost one-hundred percent. One supporting argument is to suppose again that the body I'm in awoke tomorrow morning with your memories, and vice-versa. Wouldn't you definitely "be" in California as a result? Certainly I would expect to be in Australia, and I might spend the rest of the evening boning up on Australian idioms. If that is agreed to, then for your memories to get instead just obliterated---i.e. my body wakes up tomorrow with no memories ---then it would seem that you've died completely, no? > If, on the other had, I was forewarned that > I would lose all memory of the next 24 hours, I would feel that in a > sense the person I was *now* has only 24 hours to live. Then under midazolam, provided that you overcome the psychological effects you mentioned, you ought to be similarly apprehensive about going to sleep (the normal time at which the patient goes back to being normal, as I undersand it). Same thing, I would think. >> > Having past versions of myself eliminated isn't normally an >> > option, but the thought experiment in another post in which I consider >> > a model of a block universe in parallel computers provides just such >> > an opportunity, and I would selfishly sacrifice all my past selves to >> > gain any extra runtime for my future selves. >> >> You seem to be using "to survive" as meaning to "get runtime", >> and in the sense of denying a past self his runtime (in your bombing >> scenario), whereas I usually think of "to survive" as whether from >> a given point the future solar system will host "you". > > But you still seem to be preferring future runtime to past runtime. So far as I know, this is only because in the vast majority of cases (those not in quite contrived thought experiements) the future is all that can be affected. So survival takes on the meaning of getting more runtime in the future. And that brings up an obvious scenario: what if I could choose between (A) getting to live only one more year and then dying, or (B) getting to live five more years, but at the cost of actual past experience (once again, our complicated thought experiments that enable one to decide whether or not things that I think happened to me really happened or I merely got the memories of them), as in my http://www.leecorbin.com/UseOfNewcombsParadox.html > One way you could justify this is by saying that past runtime can't be > "lost", so you need only focus on the future if your ultimate strategy > is to maximise total runtime. Oh, yes. Right. > However, in my bombing scenario that isn't so: you could as easily > lose the past as the future, yes > and in either case the total loss of runtime would be the same. > Would you therefore say it is no worse to lose > the next decade as the last decade to the bombers? In principle, Yes. In practice, I'd have to guess whether I got more benefit out of the last decade, or am more likely to gain greater benefit out of the next. To me, the logic of all this forces me to come to this conclusion, and I don't find it totally non-intuitive or inconceivable. Lee From dagonweb at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 06:58:58 2007 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:58:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is precisely the essence. If we need one thing right now to make sure a few billion people don't die, it's cheap energy. Without cheap energy, any borderline fascist states such as the US will go look for it, and invade any country they feel they can get away with invading. Russia, China and other countries may follow that lead in the next 20 years, barring any miraculous AI/nanotech/robotics/cannabis -based massive breakthroughs. If energy-deficiency stays the unifying factor enter viking style international politics. Cheap fusion would be the answer. I have no qualms about christening the first Bussard-based fusion reactor that's opened in, say, 10 years the honorary President A. Schwarzennegger reactor, because if he can pull this miracle energy source out of his chrome steel chest and hurl it into the desert to light the way, i'll fall on my knees in worship. He will have saved billions of lives. Unfortunately research, development and building of such an unprecedented device would take several decades outside the studios of Hollywood. But at least there *are* politicians that know roughly in what direction we *should* be headed to not fall off a cliff. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 07:01:31 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:01:31 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The Anticipation Dilemma In-Reply-To: <202101c7ce85$015cce20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0afa01c7c6ae$077d74a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1dff01c7c919$16632470$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1e9601c7c9b8$cf6337e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1efa01c7cb48$1285a220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f9101c7ccb2$32fc77c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <202101c7ce85$015cce20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 25/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > > > If I forget everything about my past, too bad for my past > > self (who is now effectively dead) and too bad about the > > inconvenience, but from this point on, I am forging a new life > > for the new me. > > Whereas I regard such catastropic amnesia as equivalent to > dying. The "new me" that you refer to I regard as a different > person almost one-hundred percent. I agree that total memory loss is death and the "new me" is a different person, so I certainly wouldn't want it to happen to me in future. However, if it has already happened, then I as the new person have nothing to worry about. It's like assuming I am the reincarnation of a dead person, with none of that person's memories (which is what makes reincarnation logically as well as empirically suspect). > > If, on the other had, I was forewarned that > > I would lose all memory of the next 24 hours, I would feel that in a > > sense the person I was *now* has only 24 hours to live. > > Then under midazolam, provided that you overcome the psychological > effects you mentioned, you ought to be similarly apprehensive about > going to sleep (the normal time at which the patient goes > back to being normal, as I undersand it). Same thing, I would think. Yes, that's right: I ought to be apprehensive. Thinking about this as I have I guess I would be a little more apprehensive than the average patient, but not as apprehensive as if I were going to be executed. This is inconsistent if the main reason I have for fearing death/ quasi-death is the inability to anticipate future experiences. > And that brings up an obvious scenario: what if I could choose > between (A) getting to live only one more year and then dying, > or (B) getting to live five more years, but at the cost of actual > past experience (once again, our complicated thought experiments > that enable one to decide whether or not things that I think happened > to me really happened or I merely got the memories of them), as > in my http://www.leecorbin.com/UseOfNewcombsParadox.html > > > One way you could justify this is by saying that past runtime can't be > > "lost", so you need only focus on the future if your ultimate strategy > > is to maximise total runtime. > > Oh, yes. Right. > > > However, in my bombing scenario that isn't so: you could as easily > > lose the past as the future, > > yes > > > and in either case the total loss of runtime would be the same. > > Would you therefore say it is no worse to lose > > the next decade as the last decade to the bombers? > > In principle, Yes. In practice, I'd have to guess whether I got > more benefit out of the last decade, or am more likely to gain > greater benefit out of the next. To me, the logic of all this > forces me to come to this conclusion, and I don't find it totally > non-intuitive or inconceivable. You would have to conclude this if you are to consistently tackle the anticipation problem. Unfortunately, I can no more go this far than I can go to the other consistent position, which is to say that even total, permanent death doesn't matter. So I am for now stuck with being inconsistent despite seeing intellectually that this is the case. -- Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 25 07:14:19 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:14:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm References: <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com><200707240437.l6O4bx0f020384@lily.ziaspace.com><710b78fc0707232223l2b27734wb63df01c29d4b4eb@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064718.GK20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: <204401c7ce8c$045dade0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen writes > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:53:07PM +0930, Emlyn wrote: > >> So if we are having a warming, maybe it is a good thing. It'll have >> some problems of course, but I'm willing to buy the idea that this is >> more complex than warm=bad. > > Rapid climate change -> precipitation shifts -> famine -> conflict/migration. > Plenty bad. Generally speaking, warming has always been of benefit to human populations (in all the cases I know of). The Medieval Warming period is usually the suggested example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period The article here doesn't say so, but modern Russia was founded, so I've read, during a period that to some degree circumscribed the extreme cold of the region. Each year far more people die from cold than from heat. In general, winter kills, while summer is a relatively easy time for most species. The biggest fear is of change being too rapid, I think. The one or two degree upward change suggested for this century by those who believe that a warming trend is occuring, just doesn't seem very radical to me. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 25 06:46:20 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:46:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience (was Affecting Past Experience) References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com><0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes about Stathis's bombing scenario: > Stathis writes > > > My original experiment could conceivably be modelled without the need > > for godlike powers. Suppose I am informed that I am living in a > > computer simulation of a special kind. My whole life from birth to > > death has been determined, and is being run in real time in day long > > sections simultaneously on geographically separated computers, one > > computer for each day of my life, so that the whole thing is over and > > done with in a single day in the real world. I am also aware that > > these computers are the focus of a bombing campaign by forces who > > believe sentient software is blasphemous. > > Interesting, but it doesn't quite work as stated. > > Initial state for day T + 1 = final state for day T. Therefore, the whole thing > must have been run sequentially first, to create the series of initial states. Yes, I wondered if this was going to come up. In my view this is not fatal to Stathis's thought experiment because I think that "Repeated Experience" should be valued as depositing equal benefit as original experience. (In fact, this was the point of my very first post to Extropians in January of 1996, entitled "Repeated Experience".) Most people beielive that repeated experience should be completely identified with the original experience, but I consider the arguments against this to be strong. For one thing, what if the experience is only infinitesimally different? Sure, then it can be counted as infinitesimally more valuable (and so on). But it seems awkward. Then there is the argument from measure: on the theory (often used in MWI) that your "measure"---or the sum of your observer moments throughout the multiverse---is desired to be very large and is not desired to be very small, then it follows that you might be apprehensive concerning the following experiment: You know (because the computer OS has told you so) that your life actually consists of one-and-a-half runs. That is, the original execution of your life was stored, and is/was/will-be being replayed up to the half way point. The OS now gleefully informs you that you are arriving at the one-half point in your life. Should you be at all concerned? After all, clearly the OS told/ is-telling both you and the next run of you (or you and the past run). There is the nagging idea that *this* may be the 2nd run, and you're about to terminate forever (e.g. this will be the last runtime you ever get). Now actually, the pointer (*this) in my opinion must refer equally to this point in both runs. But to me, I am faced with the prospect of my runtime suddenly getting cut in half. This is exactly how the MWI devotee feels regarding a sudden fifty-fifty chance of imminent death: in half the universes he's okay, and in the other half he dies immediately. For me, I have a sort of fancy "Many Worlds Normalization Principle" which asserts that with very few exceptions, one ought to regard our feelings the same whether or not Many Worlds is true. In particular, having a 50/50 chance of death---which ordinarily of course makes people worry greatly---should be regarded as a 50% reduction in measure over a sheath of worlds. > Now on day T you are given this news. But for the simulation to be > valid, for final state T to be initial state T + 1, you must have been > given this news in the original setup, back when the sequential run > was being done and the terrorist group hadn't yet forsaken political > methods for violence. Right. > But that means when you were first given this news, it was false. > So... is there even a fact of the matter as to whether it's true or > false "for you"? I think that this is the issue of Repeated Experience, and so I've renamed the thread. > The general conclusion I draw from this is that doing funky things > with time/metatime isn't necessarily invalid, but it has a lot of > subtle pitfalls that need to be looked out for. Oh, that's for sure! Lee From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jul 25 06:49:59 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:49:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070725064959.GK20274@leitl.org> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:11:12PM -0700, Neil Halelamien wrote: > > The article is pretty scant on details and I haven't been able to find > outside confirmation yet, but it sounds like it could be interesting: > [1]http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nextnews7.24b.html If it's energy he wants (it's California, after all) then said multimillion dollar effort would be much better spent on thin-film solar cell research, or even, as incitement program for solar roofs for home owners, to kickstart a market. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Jul 25 06:59:17 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:59:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken (was "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm) References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen writes >> > We certainly do have the money to burn on frivolous war-making. >> > So if we want to make it happen, we can. > > Elaa wrote > >> Do you really believe that? > > I certainly believe that if you can destroy value to the tune > of more than a terabuck (and counting) that that value was > expendable, by definition. (Whether there's considerably more > where that came from is an open question). > ... > A first good step would be stop spending terabucks on breaking > things and start spending terabucks on making things. Whether or not the war was justified in some sense, it's simplistic to describe the choices this way. We might employ the same logic to save a great deal of money on police and prisons, for example. They don't create wealth and are very costly. The problem, of course, is that the consequences of alternate policies may be even more costly. Surely this was the supposition of those wishing to invade Iraq even as it was the supposition of those wishing to attack Japan and Germany in 1941: though much more expensive by far than the current operations, it was deemed that in the long run failing to take these actions would have been even more expensive. Lee > A lot more accountability is in order. Unfortunately, currently people > are politically apathetic, and that's one of the reasons some of them > can get away with breaking things to the tune of more than a terabuck. From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jul 25 09:08:36 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:08:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken (was "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm) In-Reply-To: <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070725090836.GR20274@leitl.org> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:59:17PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Whether or not the war was justified in some sense, it's simplistic > to describe the choices this way. We might employ the same Sometimes, the choices are quite simple. > logic to save a great deal of money on police and prisons, for In the case of the U.S., a very good case can be made to cut the costs by 10% or more by removing classes of victimless crimes. But as whole, comparing the Iraq rigmarole with police action has me in stitches. It's ridiculous. Both in scope, and in effect. > example. They don't create wealth and are very costly. The Iraq shenanigan definitely doesn't create wealth nor security, and it is about to bankrupt the U.S. There are areas of remarkable idiocy and waste, but none of them to the tune of more than a terabuck. > The problem, of course, is that the consequences of alternate > policies may be even more costly. Surely this was the supposition The problem, of course, that idiotic policies will always be costly, and but for filling the coffers of few and nuclear glass elsewhere they're the largest problem we collectively face. The sheep definitely need to start organizing. > of those wishing to invade Iraq even as it was the supposition of > those wishing to attack Japan and Germany in 1941: though > much more expensive by far than the current operations, it was > deemed that in the long run failing to take these actions would > have been even more expensive. This war will considerably accelerate first case of nuclear terrorism of one or several U.S. cities. If you think that's cheap, be my guest. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jul 25 09:12:45 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:12:45 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <204401c7ce8c$045dade0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070724064718.GK20274@leitl.org> <204401c7ce8c$045dade0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070725091245.GS20274@leitl.org> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:14:19AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Generally speaking, warming has always been of benefit to human populations > (in all the cases I know of). The Medieval Warming period is usually the Perhaps you should read Diamond's Collapse. > suggested example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period And what did the same warming result outside of backwaters of the North Atlantic? > The article here doesn't say so, but modern Russia was founded, so I've > read, during a period that to some degree circumscribed the extreme > cold of the region. > > Each year far more people die from cold than from heat. In general, > winter kills, while summer is a relatively easy time for most species. Surely, Lee, you can't think in such simplistic terms. Surely you understand what precipitation pattern shifts would mean to sustenance farmers? > The biggest fear is of change being too rapid, I think. The one or > two degree upward change suggested for this century by those who > believe that a warming trend is occuring, just doesn't seem very > radical to me. Don't think in degrees (average degrees, mark). Think in terms of km, and in l/m^2, and kg/m^2. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From Michael at videosonics.com Wed Jul 25 09:24:18 2007 From: Michael at videosonics.com (Michael Lawrence) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:24:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <7e1e56ce0707211129g28f71066x5100e621c1b0d54f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49ED16@delanceyserver.videosonics.local> Anthropogenic global warming, as in enhanced greenhouse effect, can firstly be considered refuted due to the mismatch in fingerprinting between the predicted and actual atmospheric warming profile. Secondly, by the temperature responses on forcing not showing negative feedback characteristics, falsifying the alleged effect of positive feedbacks. That's it, projections and predictions false. Hypothesis falsified. Popper philosophy end of story. Michael. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From santostasigio at yahoo.com Wed Jul 25 04:09:39 2007 From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:09:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <163463.86115.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi everybody, I'm Giovanni, I have just joined the list, very interesting conversations.... Well, even if I'm a physicist, I'm not an expert in nuclear fusion (my field is gravitational waves) but ITER mentioned in the article reference in Neil's email is the international effort (and really the only game in town) to achieve controlled nuclear fusion, and there are good reasons why it costs billions instead of millions... Bussard is legit but he seems cut off from the fusion community somehow (he has his own private scientific firm). He is not a crackpot but maybe he is a loose cannon or something.... but controlled nuclear fusion would be really nice so good luck to him....(and Schwarzenegger). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard Neil Halelamien wrote: The article is pretty scant on details and I haven't been able to find outside confirmation yet, but it sounds like it could be interesting: http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nextnews7.24b.html _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jul 25 09:35:07 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:35:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49ED16@delanceyserver.videosonics.local> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <7e1e56ce0707211129g28f71066x5100e621c1b0d54f@mail.gmail.com> <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49ED16@delanceyserver.videosonics.local> Message-ID: <20070725093507.GW20274@leitl.org> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 10:24:18AM +0100, Michael Lawrence wrote: > Anthropogenic global warming, as in enhanced greenhouse effect, can firstly be considered refuted due to the mismatch in fingerprinting between the predicted and actual atmospheric warming profile. Secondly, by the temperature responses on forcing not showing negative feedback characteristics, falsifying the alleged effect of positive feedbacks. I'm sure you can cite your references. > That's it, projections and predictions false. Hypothesis falsified. Popper philosophy end of story. This is not a reference. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jul 25 10:25:38 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:25:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070725102538.GY20274@leitl.org> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:58:58AM +0200, Dagon Gmail wrote: > Cheap fusion would be the answer. I have no qualms about christening Cheap, small-scale power would be the answer. I don't see any signs that fusion power will become cheap anytime soon. In contrast to that, cross-over has happened with renewables in niches, which since then are only growing. > the first > Bussard-based fusion reactor that's opened in, say, 10 years the How about obtaining 13% from renewables sources, today? http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2007/07/germany-plans-more-wind.html How about doubling that, in 10 years? And becoming the world leading exporter in renewable resource technologies? Sounds like a win/win to me. > honorary > President A. Schwarzennegger reactor, because if he can pull this > miracle > energy source out of his chrome steel chest and hurl it into the >From his shiny metal ass, more like. > desert to > light the way, i'll fall on my knees in worship. He will have saved > billions of > lives. Politicians don't save lives, technologists do. > Unfortunately research, development and building of such an > unprecedented > device would take several decades outside the studios of Hollywood. > But at > least there *are* politicians that know roughly in what direction we > *should* be > headed to not fall off a cliff. Stopping looking at political leaders would be a good first step. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jul 25 10:11:56 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:11:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: <163463.86115.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <163463.86115.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070725101156.GX20274@leitl.org> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:09:39PM -0700, giovanni santost wrote: > I'm Giovanni, I have just joined the list, very interesting > conversations.... Welcome, Giovanni. > Well, even if I'm a physicist, I'm not an expert in nuclear fusion (my > field is gravitational waves) but ITER mentioned in the article > reference in Neil's email is the international effort (and really the > only game in town) to achieve controlled nuclear fusion, and there are > good reasons why it costs billions instead of millions... Bussard is > legit but he seems cut off from the fusion community somehow (he has > his own private scientific firm). He is not a crackpot but maybe he is > a loose cannon or something.... He looks like a maverick. He might succeed, then he might not. He certainly has no trouble raising private money for his latest project. Unlike tokamak or inertial confinement his stuff is cheap. > but controlled nuclear fusion would be really nice so good luck to > him....(and Schwarzenegger). If you had 50 megabucks to burn, would you rather spend it on renewables, or on fusion (which has absorbed many gigabucks, and has not even produced a break-even)? For all practical purposes solar is free fusion power, and wireless to boot. All you need is cheap enough antennas. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From santostasigio at yahoo.com Wed Jul 25 15:24:34 2007 From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: <20070725101156.GX20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: <555666.21555.qm@web31313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Eugen, I agree with you we have to put more effort in solar energy research, right now is very inefficient but if we could harvest the available solar energy we would have solved the energy problem (even just a small percentage of the solar energy reaching the Earth would meet our energy needs for many years to come). Fusion, though, needs to be investigated because it could be also an awesome way to produce energy in relative clean way and very useful (looking ahead, that as transhumanists we tend to do) for space travel, for example. They pay offs are some enormous that is worthwhile to invest large amounts of money to achieve what would be considered a milestone in human history. I 'm open to the fact that one single bright mind can outshine many people in a very large science collaboration. I work in a large science collaboration (more than 300 people) and I can tell you, that it is more and more impossible for one single person to make significant progress single-handedly. There are so many details, some many tasks in a project like that that is necessary to join forces. People claiming that they can do it better than all of the people working in the large collaboration often they are delusional and arrogant. But this is a generalization and Bussard could be different... I didn't look at the details of his fusion process but I'm sure he did his homework but I'm also sure there is a valid reason why the majority of scientists in the field are involved in ITER instead of Bussard's fusion program. Eugen Leitl wrote: On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:09:39PM -0700, giovanni santost wrote: > I'm Giovanni, I have just joined the list, very interesting > conversations.... Welcome, Giovanni. > Well, even if I'm a physicist, I'm not an expert in nuclear fusion (my > field is gravitational waves) but ITER mentioned in the article > reference in Neil's email is the international effort (and really the > only game in town) to achieve controlled nuclear fusion, and there are > good reasons why it costs billions instead of millions... Bussard is > legit but he seems cut off from the fusion community somehow (he has > his own private scientific firm). He is not a crackpot but maybe he is > a loose cannon or something.... He looks like a maverick. He might succeed, then he might not. He certainly has no trouble raising private money for his latest project. Unlike tokamak or inertial confinement his stuff is cheap. > but controlled nuclear fusion would be really nice so good luck to > him....(and Schwarzenegger). If you had 50 megabucks to burn, would you rather spend it on renewables, or on fusion (which has absorbed many gigabucks, and has not even produced a break-even)? For all practical purposes solar is free fusion power, and wireless to boot. All you need is cheap enough antennas. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 25 20:27:10 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:27:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: <555666.21555.qm@web31313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070725101156.GX20274@leitl.org> <555666.21555.qm@web31313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070725152348.0253dcc0@satx.rr.com> At 08:24 AM 7/25/2007 -0700, giovanni santost wrote: >I didn't look at the details of his fusion process but I'm sure he >did his homework but I'm also sure there is a valid reason why the >majority of scientists in the field are involved in ITER instead of >Bussard's fusion program. Institutional inertia, sunk costs especially by vast bureaucracies, career paths. I don't think his approach has ever been claimed to be based on a mistake. Unlike "cold fusion" it seems entirely canonical. Damien Broderick From neilh at caltech.edu Wed Jul 25 19:18:10 2007 From: neilh at caltech.edu (Neil Halelamien) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:18:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: <163463.86115.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <163463.86115.qm@web31305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I should also note that I unfortunately haven't been able to find any other confirmation of the story yet. Nothing's showing up on Google News... I would've assumed that something like this would've at least generated a press release. On 7/24/07, giovanni santost wrote: > > Hi everybody, > I'm Giovanni, I have just joined the list, very interesting > conversations.... > Well, even if I'm a physicist, I'm not an expert in nuclear fusion (my > field is gravitational waves) but ITER mentioned in the article reference in > Neil's email is the international effort (and really the only game in town) > to achieve controlled nuclear fusion, and there are good reasons why it > costs billions instead of millions... Bussard is legit but he seems cut off > from the fusion community somehow (he has his own private scientific firm). > He is not a crackpot but maybe he is a loose cannon or something.... > but controlled nuclear fusion would be really nice so good luck to > him....(and Schwarzenegger). > > See: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Bussard > > > > *Neil Halelamien * wrote: > > The article is pretty scant on details and I haven't been able to find > outside confirmation yet, but it sounds like it could be interesting: > > http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nextnews7.24b.html > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > ------------------------------ > Building a website is a piece of cake. > Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Jul 25 23:36:35 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:36:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070725152348.0253dcc0@satx.rr.com> References: <20070725101156.GX20274@leitl.org> <555666.21555.qm@web31313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070725152348.0253dcc0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070725183541.02221c40@satx.rr.com> EETimes: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199703602 [...] The current, third-generation prototype uses six doughnut-shaped electromagnets to create a cube in which to confine the fusion reactions in a strong magnetic field. The original protype operated in air and was just centimeters in diameter; the current design operates in a vacuum chamber and measures roughly a cubic yard. When all six electromagnets are energized, the magnetic fields meld into a nearly perfect sphere. Electrons are in- jected into the sphere to create a superdense core of highly negative charge. Given enough electrons, the electrical field can be made strong enough to induce fusion in selected particles. Positively charged protons and boron-11 ions are injected into the sphere and are quickly accelerated into the center of the electron ball by its high negative charge. Protons and boron ions that overshoot the center are pulled back with an oscillatory action of a thousand or more cycles. If the negative charge of the core is high enough, the positively charged particles will accelerate enough during their oscillations to induce a fusion reaction. The boron-11 collides with a proton to create carbon-12, which then splits into a helium nucleus and a beryllium nucleus. The beryllium particle splits into two more helium nuclei, resulting in a total of three helium nuclei, each of which has almost 3 million electron volts of energy. The force of the final splitting step drives the helium nuclei out of the center of the reactor, where a surrounding electrical grid directly dissipates their energy by generating electricity at a claimed efficiency of 95 percent. From brentn at freeshell.org Thu Jul 26 00:42:20 2007 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:42:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: <555666.21555.qm@web31313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <555666.21555.qm@web31313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <78A27AC6-DEBE-4B64-96D9-9F1B96F6C7C4@freeshell.org> On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:24, giovanni santost wrote: > Thanks Eugen, > I agree with you we have to put more effort in solar energy > research, right now is very inefficient but if we could harvest the > available solar energy we would have solved the energy problem > (even just a small percentage of the solar energy reaching the > Earth would meet our energy needs for many years to come). > Fusion, though, needs to be investigated because it could be also > an awesome way to produce energy in relative clean way and very > useful (looking ahead, that as transhumanists we tend to do) for > space travel, for example. They pay offs are some enormous that is > worthwhile to invest large amounts of money to achieve what would > be considered a milestone in human history. > I 'm open to the fact that one single bright mind can outshine many > people in a very large science collaboration. I work in a large > science collaboration (more than 300 people) and I can tell you, > that it is more and more impossible for one single person to make > significant progress single-handedly. There are so many details, > some many tasks in a project like that that is necessary to join > forces. People claiming that they can do it better than all of the > people working in the large collaboration often they are delusional > and arrogant. > But this is a generalization and Bussard could be different... > I didn't look at the details of his fusion process but I'm sure he > did his homework but I'm also sure there is a valid reason why the > majority of scientists in the field are involved in ITER instead of > Bussard's fusion program. > > Hey Giovanni - Good to see you here. Not sure if you remember me or not, but we were in grad school together. No one's pointed this out yet, but this Bussard is the one with the eponymous ramjet. His credentials are such that I'll be interested to see if he pulls it off. I've been singularly unimpressed with the plans for ITER and the progress on the NIF. B -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 13:27:03 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:27:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <20070725091245.GS20274@leitl.org> References: <20070724064718.GK20274@leitl.org> <204401c7ce8c$045dade0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070725091245.GS20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: <62c14240707250627t169fae41h47fae3d0515df52f@mail.gmail.com> On 7/25/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Don't think in degrees (average degrees, mark). Think in > terms of km, and in l/m^2, and kg/m^2. > "It's a simple question of weight ratios" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 13:22:59 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:22:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience (was Affecting Past Experience) In-Reply-To: <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240707250622r3900ff1bn75a23e9ee354fd75@mail.gmail.com> On 7/25/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > You know (because the computer OS has told you so) that > your life actually consists of one-and-a-half runs. That is, the > original execution of your life was stored, and is/was/will-be > being replayed up to the half way point. The OS now gleefully > informs you that you are arriving at the one-half point in your > life. > > Should you be at all concerned? After all, clearly the OS told/ > is-telling both you and the next run of you (or you and the past > run). There is the nagging idea that *this* may be the 2nd run, > and you're about to terminate forever (e.g. this will be the last > runtime you ever get). > If I can never have access/knowledge of the iteration counter to detect that the original experience is different than the second (or thousandth) then it really doesn't matter, does it? Where does the nagging idea come from? That implies some psychic awareness of state. Now if you tell me that life is being presented in a similar way to graphic interlacing, such that further iterations increase the observable resolution - then of course I would want to observe emergent details past the first iteration. There must be some limiting returns on this too though. Ex: Imagine touring an Art museum at a detail level where you can see only rectangular blocks of color on the wall. On the next trip, the colors reveal shapes. After several more visits, you can appreciate that the details available now include actual brush-strokes. The computational cost of this detail would be prohibitive, but your repeated investment of runtime has distributed that cost over several visits, so the previously "cached" experiences can be refined for a more linear expense per visit. "terminate forever" doesn't make any sense to me either. If you have a complete transactional record of every moment of your life recorded on some medium (you know, an ideal chunk of space-time) then random access into any point in that recording for playback/continuation would be identical experiential "existence" as any other runtime. This assumes the playback machine is constant. Does a given space-time degrade if accessed too frequently? (could you make an "archival" space-time and only replay clones?) Is there something unique about the creation/initial render of space-time recordings? (like the difference between watching SNL "live" and watching an episode recorded earlier) I asked a lot of questions. I lack Lee's formalism. I used too many scare quotes. I sincerely hope readers see past that and comment on the ideas I try to express even when I do not communicate them clearly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robotact at mail.ru Thu Jul 26 01:46:38 2007 From: robotact at mail.ru (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 05:46:38 +0400 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience In-Reply-To: <62c14240707250622r3900ff1bn75a23e9ee354fd75@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707250622r3900ff1bn75a23e9ee354fd75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <90260193188.20070726054638@mail.ru> Wednesday, July 25, 2007, Mike Dougherty wrote: MD> On 7/25/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >> >> >> You know (because the computer OS has told you so) that >> your life actually consists of one-and-a-half runs. That is, the >> original execution of your life was stored, and is/was/will-be >> being replayed up to the half way point. The OS now gleefully >> informs you that you are arriving at the one-half point in your >> life. >> >> Should you be at all concerned? After all, clearly the OS told/ >> is-telling both you and the next run of you (or you and the past >> run). There is the nagging idea that *this* may be the 2nd run, >> and you're about to terminate forever (e.g. this will be the last >> runtime you ever get). >> MD> If I can never have access/knowledge of the iteration counter to detect that MD> the original experience is different than the second (or thousandth) then it MD> really doesn't matter, does it? Where does the nagging idea come from? MD> That implies some psychic awareness of state. Now if you tell me that life MD> is being presented in a similar way to graphic interlacing, such that MD> further iterations increase the observable resolution - then of course I MD> would want to observe emergent details past the first iteration. There must MD> be some limiting returns on this too though. Ex: Imagine touring an Art MD> museum at a detail level where you can see only rectangular blocks of color MD> on the wall. On the next trip, the colors reveal shapes. After several MD> more visits, you can appreciate that the details available now include MD> actual brush-strokes. The computational cost of this detail would be MD> prohibitive, but your repeated investment of runtime has distributed that MD> cost over several visits, so the previously "cached" experiences can be MD> refined for a more linear expense per visit. MD> "terminate forever" doesn't make any sense to me either. If you have a MD> complete transactional record of every moment of your life recorded on some MD> medium (you know, an ideal chunk of space-time) then random access into any MD> point in that recording for playback/continuation would be identical MD> experiential "existence" as any other runtime. This assumes the playback MD> machine is constant. Does a given space-time degrade if accessed too MD> frequently? (could you make an "archival" space-time and only replay MD> clones?) Is there something unique about the creation/initial render of MD> space-time recordings? (like the difference between watching SNL "live" and MD> watching an episode recorded earlier) MD> I asked a lot of questions. I lack Lee's formalism. I used too many scare MD> quotes. I sincerely hope readers see past that and comment on the ideas I MD> try to express even when I do not communicate them clearly. This comes around to just another take on quantum immortality. If universe given observer is embedded in is described by a set of (mathematical) rules (e.g. initial state, transitions), and these rules are being followed by some implementation on computer, subjective experience of observer doesn't depend on implementation or computer. >From observer's point of view there is no difference between him being emulated on one computer system or another, his experience from his point of view is a platonic entity. This subjective experience can as well be considered to be emulated partially on one implementation, and partially on another, or on no implementation at all - this doesn't change anything. Pitfall of such thought experiment is that this platonic universe can't be modified, modification equals to picking different platonic universe, so for discussion about subjective experience of embedded observer it doesn't matter what you do with implementation. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact at mail.ru From mmbutler at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 02:02:04 2007 From: mmbutler at gmail.com (Michael M. Butler) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:02:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Brian May approaches his (non-honorary) Doctorate Message-ID: <7d79ed890707251902i4681fb07m44d60dcef3a9be5a@mail.gmail.com> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yobmr5 'His thesis, "Radial Velocities in the Zodiacal Dust Cloud," is the last component of his PhD studies and May expected to complete his work on Wednesday.' I assume they mean "expected to complete his data collection". Didn't know he was into dust. Did you, Amara? -- Michael M. Butler : m m b u t l e r ( a t ) g m a i l . c o m SOC: Everybody in the world hates you. GLEN: That's good, because it makes things more challenging. SOC: You're insane ? you're out of your freaking mind. GLEN: That's good, too, because it makes thinking more challenging. From fauxever at sprynet.com Thu Jul 26 02:16:18 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:16:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eternity for Atheists Message-ID: <007a01c7cf2a$f434de30$6401a8c0@brainiac> Eternity for AtheistsEternity for Atheists By JIM HOLT If God is dead, does that mean we cannot survive our own deaths? Recent best-selling books against religion agree that immortality is a myth we ought to outgrow. But there are a few thinkers with unimpeachable scientific credentials who have been waving their arms and shouting: not so fast. Even without God, they say, we have reason to hope for - or possibly fear - an afterlife. Curiously, the doctrine of immortality is more a pagan legacy than a religious one. The notion that each of us is essentially an immortal soul goes back to Plato. Whereas the body is a compound thing that eventually falls apart, Plato argued, the soul is simple and therefore imperishable. Contrast this view with that of the Bible. In the Old Testament there is little mention of an afterlife; the rewards and punishments invoked by Moses were to take place in this world, not the next one. Only near the beginning of the Christian era did one Jewish sect, the Pharisees, take the afterlife seriously, in the form of the resurrection of the body. The idea that "the dead shall be raised" was then brought into Christianity by St. Paul. The Judeo-Christian version of immortality doesn't work very well without God: who but a divine agent could miraculously reconstitute each of us after our death as a "spiritual body"? Plato's version has no such need; since our platonic souls are simple and thus enduring, we are immortal by nature. The Platonic picture may be pleasing, but it is hard to square with what we have learned from neuroscience. Everything that gives each of us our personal identities - consciousness, character, memories and so on - seems rooted in the electrochemical processes of our brains. As Bertrand Russell observed, "A virtuous person may be rendered vicious by encephalitis lethargica, and . . . a clever child can be turned into an idiot by a lack of iodine." The dependence is most cruelly apparent in cases of Alzheimer's disease, where the dissolution of the self proceeds in direct proportion to the physical deterioration of the brain. Where does this leave those who, while secular in outlook, still pine after immortality? A little more than a century ago, the American philosopher William James proposed an interesting way of keeping open the door to an afterlife. We know that the mind depends on the physical brain, James said. But that doesn't mean that our brain processes actually produce our mental life, as opposed to merely transmitting it. Perhaps, he conjectured, our brains allow our minds to filter through to this world from some transcendent "mother sea" of consciousness. Had James given his lecture a few decades later, he might have used the radio as a metaphor. When a radio is damaged, the music becomes distorted. When it is smashed, the music stops altogether. All the while, however, the signal is still out there, uncorrupted. James's idea of immortality may sound far-fetched, but for him and other scientifically minded thinkers of his time it had one great virtue. It explained the existence of what were thought to be psychic phenomena: ghostly apparitions, communications from the dead at s?ances and seeming cases of reincarnation. Alas, little of this supposed evidence for an afterlife has held up under the scrutiny of rigorous investigation. In the 1970s, a new hope for survivalists emerged: the near-death experience. In the best-selling book "Life After Life," a doctor and parapsychologist named Raymond A. Moody Jr. presented a number of cases in which patients who had flat-lined and then been revived told of entering a long tunnel and emerging into a dazzling pool of light, where they communed with departed loved ones. In 1988, the atheist philosopher A. J. Ayer had such an adventure when he choked on a piece of smoked salmon and his heart stopped for a few minutes. Soon afterward, Ayer reported that his near-death experience, in which he saw a red light that seemed to govern the universe, "slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death . . . will be the end of me." But he later dismissed it as a hallucination caused by a temporary lack of oxygen in his brain. The most interesting possibilities for an afterlife proposed in recent years are based on hard science with a dash of speculation. In his 1994 book, "The Physics of Immortality," Frank J. Tipler, a specialist in relativity theory at Tulane University, showed how future beings might, in their drive for total knowledge, "resurrect" us in the form of computer simulations. (If this seems implausible to you, think how close we are right now to "resurrecting" extinct species through knowledge of their genomes.) John Leslie, a Canadian who ranks as one of the world's leading philosophers of cosmology, draws on quantum physics in his painstakingly argued new book, "Immortality Defended." Each of us, Leslie submits, is immortal because our life patterns are but an aspect of an "existentially unified" cosmos that will persist after our death. Both Tipler and Leslie are, in different ways, heirs to the view of William James. The mind or "soul," as they see it, consists of information, not matter. And one of the deepest principles of quantum theory, called "unitarity," forbids the disappearance of information. (Stephen Hawking used to think you could destroy your information by heaving yourself into a black hole, but a few years ago he changed his mind.) If death is not extinction, what might it be like? That's a question the Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick, who died five years ago, enjoyed pondering. One of the more rococo possibilities he considered was that the dying person's organized energy might bubble into a new universe created in that person's image. Although his reflections were inconclusive, Nozick hit on a seductive maxim: first, imagine what form of immortality would be best; then live your life right now as though it were true. And, who knows, it may be true. "Life is a great surprise," Vladimir Nabokov once observed. "I do not see why death should not be an even greater one." Jim Holt is a contributing writer for the magazine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 02:49:36 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:49:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience In-Reply-To: <90260193188.20070726054638@mail.ru> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707250622r3900ff1bn75a23e9ee354fd75@mail.gmail.com> <90260193188.20070726054638@mail.ru> Message-ID: <62c14240707251949j15873a2em4fc8c85e3c044ba5@mail.gmail.com> On 7/25/07, Vladimir Nesov wrote: > > This comes around to just another take on quantum immortality. > If universe given observer is embedded in is described by a > set of (mathematical) rules (e.g. initial state, transitions), and these > rules are > being followed by some implementation on computer, subjective > experience of observer doesn't depend on implementation or computer. > >From observer's point of view there is no difference between him being > emulated on one computer system or another, his experience from his > point of view is a platonic entity. This subjective experience can as well > be > considered to be emulated partially on one implementation, and > partially on another, or on no implementation at all - this doesn't > change anything. Pitfall of such thought experiment is that this > platonic universe can't be modified, modification equals to > picking different platonic universe, so for discussion about > subjective experience of embedded observer it doesn't matter what you do > with implementation. > Do you think Plato would have a term for the probabilistic aggregation of all similar "Platonic Solids" that are within some degree of similarity to each other? Such a platonic meta-solid would encompasses all the possible implementations of solid that include "You" or "I". "Modification" in the sense you mentioned would be an increasing refinement of the meta-solid until at last an atomic solid were immutably arrived upon. I guess the whole point of increasing runtime is to continue the refinement process indefinately without ever reaching the 'final' selection. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Thu Jul 26 06:40:32 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 02:40:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots" References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: <024301c7cf50$11a5a470$ae074e0c@MyComputer> "Eugen Leitl" >if you can destroy value to the tune of more than >a terabuck (and counting) that that value was > expendable, by definition. Eugen that's chump change if you're really serious about reducing CO2 emissions. The extraordinarily silly Kyoto Protocols if adopted by the USA would cost between 150 to 350 billion dollars every year (that's Billion with a B) and for all that it would mean the warming you would see in 2100 would be postponed until 2106. That's a rounding error! If we spent the same money on clean water in just 8 years (8 YEARS!) every human on earth would have clean potable water, this would stop 2 million deaths and prevent a billion illnesses EVERY YEAR. So I'm supposed to get all weepy over the prospect of global warming? BULLSHIT! If it turns out in a hundred years that global warming is a serious problem then we will deal with it then, but you seem to demand that the Wright brothers produce a solution to airport congestion before they try to build their first airplane. John K Clark From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jul 26 07:05:21 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:05:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070725152348.0253dcc0@satx.rr.com> References: <20070725101156.GX20274@leitl.org> <555666.21555.qm@web31313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070725152348.0253dcc0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070726070521.GO20274@leitl.org> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 03:27:10PM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > Institutional inertia, sunk costs especially by vast bureaucracies, > career paths. I don't think his approach has ever been claimed to be He used to be a tokamak man, though, before he got disenchanted with that particular path. > based on a mistake. Unlike "cold fusion" it seems entirely canonical. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From dagonweb at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 08:43:47 2007 From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:43:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] State of California supporting Bussard fusion research? In-Reply-To: <20070726070521.GO20274@leitl.org> References: <20070725101156.GX20274@leitl.org> <555666.21555.qm@web31313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070725152348.0253dcc0@satx.rr.com> <20070726070521.GO20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: Again a hypothetical question: "Some people" on and off this list seem to have to atrbitrarily attribute government/scientific bureauracies (specifically anything within a lightsecond distance of NASA) with a tendency to waste a sizeable percentage of their budgets with irrelevancies: Often mentioned are: - intentional cost overruns to adjust next years budget - old, depraved scientists who produce nothing yet play pacman with government subsidies - ineffcient bureaucracies - middle management If anyone ascribes to this analysis, what can you do about it? Better still, how can you expose it, incontrovertibly, to the world? If this is such a distinct, predictable and unavoidable phenomenon, I mean, it should be a pustule waiting to be squeezed, right? I mean IF we can attribute 50 years of failure in real fusion-energy breakthroughs on any combination of the above then some people should go to prison ! ...unless it simply isn't true and the whole argument serves as some blank dismissal of a lack of results to the alleged incompetence. I'd say let's make this claim falsifiable. Let's create some solid evidence for or against, instead of rehashing the same accusation over and over again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jul 26 09:13:56 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:13:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots" In-Reply-To: <024301c7cf50$11a5a470$ae074e0c@MyComputer> References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <024301c7cf50$11a5a470$ae074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20070726091356.GU20274@leitl.org> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 02:40:32AM -0400, John K Clark wrote: > Eugen that's chump change if you're really serious about reducing > CO2 emissions. The extraordinarily silly Kyoto Protocols if I do not care about CO2 emissions. I care about giving individuals personal ownership to very cheap sources of energy (which happen to be zero-emission, but that's a side effect). We're rapidly moving towards solid-state lighting (I installed my first LED spots yesterday, and in about a year or two that technology will kill fluorescents dead), and there are incremental progress towards solid-state heat pumps. Add polymer PV (as an inflatable dome) to it, and you can have something which will fit into the back of an (EV) truck, or can be airdropped, and house a complete family, including air-conditioning and a source of clean water. Add algaculture to it, and here's something which will clean up sewage and provide animal feed on a very small footprint. Apart from reducing the ecological footprint to almost zero this is something which closely approaches the technology required for sustainable living in space, coincidentally. > adopted by the USA would cost between 150 to 350 billion dollars > every year (that's Billion with a B) and for all that it would mean The raw numbers are not a problem: http://zfacts.com/p/447.html but I really question your numbers. I think this is bogus. http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=22799&hed=Germany+Eases+off+Solar§or=Industries&subsector=Energy At the same time, Germany has already surpassed its goal of generating about 12 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2010. Today Germans get 13 percent of their energy from renewable sources, and the environment ministry wants to more than double that percentage by 2020 while still increasing overall energy production by 3 percent annually, Mr. Schroeren said." > the warming you would see in 2100 would be postponed until 2106. > That's a rounding error! If we spent the same money on clean water We're talking about long-term plans in domestic energy markets. Coincidentally, cheap photovoltaics is a good way to drive water well pumps and water purification systems. And of course there are drinking-straw type of filters which last a year and cost next to nothing. > in just 8 years (8 YEARS!) every human on earth would have clean > potable water, this would stop 2 million deaths and prevent a > billion illnesses EVERY YEAR. So I'm supposed to get all weepy > over the prospect of global warming? BULLSHIT! > > If it turns out in a hundred years that global warming is a serious problem > then we will deal with it then, but you seem to demand that the Wright > brothers produce a solution to airport congestion before they try to build > their first airplane. I think the year is 1947, and I'm just trying to buy an airplane ticket. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From emohamad at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 12:05:09 2007 From: emohamad at gmail.com (Elaa Mohamad) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:05:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm Message-ID: <24f36f410707260505p77ccc5cfg51e11fa611b14ed1@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:29:58 +0200 Sondre Bjell?s > Time to migrate somewhere else? suggestions? It's a nice and toasty 35C in Croatia. A friend went to visit his friends in Romania last week and had to spend 4 hours waiting in the shade just off the highway. The reason? The sun was literally melting the pavement and the highway was closed. Lots of fun. Eli From emohamad at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 12:45:36 2007 From: emohamad at gmail.com (Elaa Mohamad) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:45:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm Message-ID: <24f36f410707260545h600047f8ld23f2a6d64da8039@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:31:59 +0100 > Nymph0 wrote: > > On 23/07/07, Elaa Mohamad wrote: > > When was the last time everybody had a reason to be interested in the > > environment? > > Scandinavians in the 1970s viz a vie acid rain, for one. The question was "when was the last time __everybody__ had a reason to be interested in the environment", not "when did __specific groups in a specific time frame__ have a reason..." I will risk making the assumption that a very large percentage of people is most certainly aware or would at least agree with the claim that there in specific geographical areas in a given time period there __was__ environmental damage, irrespectively of the cause. I consider myself being in this group (being aware). The point I was trying to make is that the "silent majority" always thinks in terms how a given event/fact affects them individually, asking the question "And how does that relate to __me__?" In other words, the Scandinavians had acid rain and were very concerned about it, but at the same time some other nation (even the one that might be directly responsible for the environmental damage) couldn't care less - because it wasn't happening to them and they weren't directly negatively affected. On the other hand, the greenhouse effect or whateveryouwannacallit - the negative environmental processes have recently started affecting quite a number of nations directly, and thus __everybody__ is becoming interested in it. Eli >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:43:30, >Eugen Leitl wrote: >>On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:00:07PM +0200, Elaa Mohamad wrote: >> When was the last time everybody had a reason to be interested in the >> environment? >http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/envhist/ Nice link :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From emohamad at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 13:34:21 2007 From: emohamad at gmail.com (Elaa Mohamad) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:34:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm Message-ID: <24f36f410707260634y6d0efa16hb2ca1fafb354058@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:43:30 Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > We certainly do have the money to burn on frivolous war-making. > > > So if we want to make it happen, we can. Eli replied: > > Do you really believe that? Eugen wrote: > I certainly believe that if you can destroy value to the tune > of more than a terabuck (and counting) that that value was > expendable, by definition. (Whether there's considerably more > where that came from is an open question). Sorry I didn't make myself clear, or maybe I did not understand your point completely. I was hung up on the word __we__. I have no doubt there are more than enough resources in the world to "make it happen" (I assume we both mean "a society based on sustainable development principles"). What I wanted to say is that __we__ - you and I, individuals - do not have the power to let's say stop worldwide frivolous war-making or burning dead dino remains. We can only influence the decision makers through lobbying groups etc. But the bottom line is that __we__ do not make the final decisions, hence __we__ cannot simply/directly make it happen. > > If so, _how_ do we make it happen? > > A first good step would be stop spending terabucks on breaking > things and start spending terabucks on making things. I am not personally investing money in breaking things and I doubt you or anyone on this list recently bought a WMD as a living room decoration. But only recently my government made some weapon purchases/sales, with my hard earned tax money, without my explicit approval. So, how do I stop my elected officials in spending my money on things I do not want? (and I did not even vote for them!!!) > > I believe the right question to ask is: How do we ensure the discontinuation of current practices will bring about more benefits for the decision makers (resources, power, etc.) than simply continuing the dead dino burning extravaganza. > > Too rational. People first have to want things, and that then things > start to move, and only then do benefits materialize (or fail to). Yes, I agree. And what do people ( __we__ ) want? Or better said - what do the decision makers want? What I am saying is that perhaps they are currently getting more benefits by burning readily available prehistoric cow poo then what they think they would get by building a hydrogen economy. > > Mind, the motivation doesn't have to be only positive reinforcement - > > if the decision makers see they are losing on the polls or their > > A lot more accountability is in order. Unfortunately, currently people > are politically apathetic, and that's one of the reasons some of them > can get away with breaking things to the tune of more than a terabuck. I completely agree. Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 14:40:54 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:40:54 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience (was Affecting Past Experience) In-Reply-To: <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 25/07/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Most people beielive that repeated experience should be completely > identified with the original experience, but I consider the arguments > against this to be strong. For one thing, what if the experience is only > infinitesimally different? Sure, then it can be counted as infinitesimally > more valuable (and so on). But it seems awkward. It is awkward, but you can't escape the awkwardness in any personal identity scenarios, since at some point you have to allow either a continuous or discontinuous distinction between self and non-self. > Then there is the argument from measure: on the theory (often used in > MWI) that your "measure"---or the sum of your observer moments > throughout the multiverse---is desired to be very large and is not > desired to be very small, then it follows that you might be apprehensive > concerning the following experiment: > > You know (because the computer OS has told you so) that > your life actually consists of one-and-a-half runs. That is, the > original execution of your life was stored, and is/was/will-be > being replayed up to the half way point. The OS now gleefully > informs you that you are arriving at the one-half point in your > life. > > Should you be at all concerned? After all, clearly the OS told/ > is-telling both you and the next run of you (or you and the past > run). There is the nagging idea that *this* may be the 2nd run, > and you're about to terminate forever (e.g. this will be the last > runtime you ever get). The significant point I would like to make here is that the missing half of the second run would have been no better qualified to continue your experiences if you happened to be enjoying life in that run than the second half of the first run is. > Now actually, the pointer (*this) in my opinion must refer equally > to this point in both runs. But to me, I am faced with the prospect > of my runtime suddenly getting cut in half. This is exactly how the > MWI devotee feels regarding a sudden fifty-fifty chance of > imminent death: in half the universes he's okay, and in the other > half he dies immediately. For me, I have a sort of fancy > "Many Worlds Normalization Principle" which asserts that with > very few exceptions, one ought to regard our feelings the same > whether or not Many Worlds is true. In particular, having a 50/50 > chance of death---which ordinarily of course makes people worry > greatly---should be regarded as a 50% reduction in measure over > a sheath of worlds. There are several reasons to avoid situations in which you have a 50% chance of dying, even if you believe that the MWI will save you in some worlds: you might end up in pain or crippled; your friends and family will end up grieving in half the worlds; and - descriptive rather than prescriptive - you are more likely to find yourself in a world where you have increased your measure by avoiding death. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 14:47:53 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:47:53 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience In-Reply-To: <90260193188.20070726054638@mail.ru> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707250622r3900ff1bn75a23e9ee354fd75@mail.gmail.com> <90260193188.20070726054638@mail.ru> Message-ID: On 26/07/07, Vladimir Nesov wrote: > This comes around to just another take on quantum immortality. > If universe given observer is embedded in is described by a > set of (mathematical) rules (e.g. initial state, transitions), and these rules are > being followed by some implementation on computer, subjective > experience of observer doesn't depend on implementation or computer. > >From observer's point of view there is no difference between him being > emulated on one computer system or another, his experience from his > point of view is a platonic entity. This subjective experience can as well be > considered to be emulated partially on one implementation, and > partially on another, or on no implementation at all - this doesn't > change anything. Pitfall of such thought experiment is that this > platonic universe can't be modified, modification equals to > picking different platonic universe, so for discussion about > subjective experience of embedded observer it doesn't matter what you do > with implementation. You can't change Platonic reality; but then, you can't change a deterministic universe (such as the MWI describes) either. -- Stathis Papaioannou From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 17:42:25 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:42:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience (was Affecting Past Experience) In-Reply-To: <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0707261042r6ec4ae13o593f6ce7456d5416@mail.gmail.com> On 7/25/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Now actually, the pointer (*this) in my opinion must refer equally > to this point in both runs. But to me, I am faced with the prospect > of my runtime suddenly getting cut in half. This is exactly how the > MWI devotee feels regarding a sudden fifty-fifty chance of > imminent death: in half the universes he's okay, and in the other > half he dies immediately. For me, I have a sort of fancy > "Many Worlds Normalization Principle" which asserts that with > very few exceptions, one ought to regard our feelings the same > whether or not Many Worlds is true. In particular, having a 50/50 > chance of death---which ordinarily of course makes people worry > greatly---should be regarded as a 50% reduction in measure over > a sheath of worlds. Yes, I agree with that. Indeed, while the two are logically equivalent, on an emotional level I find measure accounting a more useful way to think of it, being more conducive to calmly optimizing for expected utility across all outcomes (as opposed to fruitlessly trying to deny any chance of a bad outcome). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robotact at mail.ru Thu Jul 26 17:58:00 2007 From: robotact at mail.ru (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:58:00 +0400 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience (was Affecting Past Experience) In-Reply-To: <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com><0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <48079377.20070726215800@mail.ru> Wednesday, July 25, 2007, Lee Corbin wrote: LC> Now actually, the pointer (*this) in my opinion must refer equally LC> to this point in both runs. But to me, I am faced with the prospect LC> of my runtime suddenly getting cut in half. This is exactly how the LC> MWI devotee feels regarding a sudden fifty-fifty chance of LC> imminent death: in half the universes he's okay, and in the other LC> half he dies immediately. For me, I have a sort of fancy LC> "Many Worlds Normalization Principle" which asserts that with LC> very few exceptions, one ought to regard our feelings the same LC> whether or not Many Worlds is true. In particular, having a 50/50 LC> chance of death---which ordinarily of course makes people worry LC> greatly---should be regarded as a 50% reduction in measure over LC> a sheath of worlds. Problem is probably anthropomorphisation of indifferent principle. Question is "should I worry or not?", where "worry" and "should" are not well-defined. Objective many worlds perspective is equivalent to subjective reformulation of mind operation in the following terms. Mind is an algorithm that selects an action of an agent, or equivalently mind anticipates an action of an agent, and anticipated action is performed. Mind also anticipates performance of universe (grounded to senses, whatever). It doesn't know with certainty what will happen, but it must select a single action for an agent, so it holds a measure over possible states of the universe, selecting an action of agent with greatest measure. So as always selection between subjective and objective viewpoints don't affect actions. Now, having 50% chance of death in either case shouldn't cause any 'worry' to rational agent, if its actions can't affect that chance. MWI trick is that performing a quantum suicide experiment is expected under some circumstances to be selected by a rational mind over not performing an experiment. In subjective interpretation of MWI it corresponds to agent having a theory of its mind's operation, so that agent can manipulate decision making procedure of its mind, allowing otherwise irrational decisions. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact at mail.ru From robotact at mail.ru Thu Jul 26 18:01:28 2007 From: robotact at mail.ru (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:01:28 +0400 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience In-Reply-To: References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707250622r3900ff1bn75a23e9ee354fd75@mail.gmail.com> <90260193188.20070726054638@mail.ru> Message-ID: <858286935.20070726220128@mail.ru> Thursday, July 26, 2007, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: SP> On 26/07/07, Vladimir Nesov wrote: >> This comes around to just another take on quantum immortality. >> If universe given observer is embedded in is described by a >> set of (mathematical) rules (e.g. initial state, transitions), and these rules are >> being followed by some implementation on computer, subjective >> experience of observer doesn't depend on implementation or computer. >> From observer's point of view there is no difference between him being >> emulated on one computer system or another, his experience from his >> point of view is a platonic entity. This subjective experience can as well be >> considered to be emulated partially on one implementation, and >> partially on another, or on no implementation at all - this doesn't >> change anything. Pitfall of such thought experiment is that this >> platonic universe can't be modified, modification equals to >> picking different platonic universe, so for discussion about >> subjective experience of embedded observer it doesn't matter what you do >> with implementation. SP> You can't change Platonic reality; but then, you can't change a SP> deterministic universe (such as the MWI describes) either. As in previous message 'universe' refers to all states at all times, meaning of 'change' applied to universe observer is embedded in is different. As you (seem to?) refer to it, 'change' is a facet of transition function, which in turn depends on current state of the universe (at current time), which includes state of the embedded observer, 'you', so 'you' can 'change' the 'universe'. When you change implementation (destroy the computing system, etc.), rules this implementation implements are changed relative to rules system was originally designed to, so that emulated universe is different from the one system was designed to emulate. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact at mail.ru From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Jul 26 21:44:51 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:44:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm References: <20070724064718.GK20274@leitl.org><204401c7ce8c$045dade0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070725091245.GS20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: <206801c7cfce$c1536870$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen writes > On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:14:19AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Generally speaking, warming has always been of benefit to human populations >> (in all the cases I know of). The Medieval Warming period is usually the > > Perhaps you should read Diamond's Collapse. I did. It's the best description of the extinction of the Greenland settlement I've read, although it too much neglects the worsening climate. >> Each year far more people die from cold than from heat. In general, >> winter kills, while summer is a relatively easy time for most species. > > Surely, Lee, you can't think in such simplistic terms. Why isn't that a factor, exactly? In general, we *do* want it warmer insofar as human deaths per year go (of course, there are many other factors we want to take into consideration, I'd better hasten to admit). > Surely you understand what precipitation pattern shifts would mean to > sustenance farmers? The patterns change anyway. Moreover, while yes, some farmers will experience less rainfall, others, equally bad off, will experience gains. I doubt if anyone can adequately guess all the tradeoffs. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Jul 26 22:23:07 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:23:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience (was Affecting Past Experience) References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240707250622r3900ff1bn75a23e9ee354fd75@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <209c01c7cfd3$af0dba30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > On 7/25/07, Lee Corbin wrote: You know (because the computer OS has told you so) that your life actually consists of one-and-a-half runs. That is, the original execution of your life was stored, and is/was/will-be being replayed up to the half way point. The OS now gleefully informs you that you are arriving at the one-half point in your life. Should you be at all concerned? After all, clearly the OS told/ is-telling both you and the next run of you (or you and the past run). There is the nagging idea that *this* may be the 2nd run, and you're about to terminate forever (e.g. this will be the last runtime you ever get). > If I can never have access/knowledge of the iteration counter to > detect that the original experience is different That's right, because then the runs wouldn't be exactly identical. > than the second (or thousandth) then it really doesn't matter, does it? > Where does the nagging idea come from? That implies some psychic > awareness of state. I agree that one should not think of (*this) as selecting out either the earlier or later run. Thus I agree that this "nagging idea" or concern is misplaced. As I think Stathis mentioned, you'll naturally and properly (to the degree that the concept can be made rational) anticipate the experiences of the 2nd half of the first run. > "terminate forever" doesn't make any sense to me either. If you > have a complete transactional record of every moment of your life > recorded on some medium... then random access into any point in > that recording for playback/continuation would be identical > experiential "existence" as any other runtime. By "terminate forever" I was just supposing a straw man, in the sense of someone who really would think that (*this) could be pointing solely to the 2nd run. Of course, "terminate forever" referred to an external clock time. Yes, provided that the data comprising you always gets another chance for more runtime, then naturally there can be no "forever" termination. But in the scenario where you discover that you are just the plaything of an Operating System that has spawned you, permitted you a normal life up until now, but who you now understand plans never to run you again, and (by hypothesis) you won't get any further runtime in our universe, then you have to look at the prospect of true death. :-) Naturally, if the data isn't thrown away, then there is always the possibility that the OS will change its mind, or that you'll be resurrected in some other improbable way. > This assumes the playback machine is constant. Does a given > space-time degrade if accessed too frequently? Not on any assumptions I'm familiar with, or seem fruitful. > Is there something unique about the creation/initial render of > space-time recordings? (like the difference between watching > SNL "live" and watching an episode recorded earlier) Not that I know of. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Jul 26 22:40:10 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:40:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience (was Affecting Past Experience) References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com><0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48079377.20070726215800@mail.ru> Message-ID: <20a901c7cfd6$7d835b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Vladimir writes > Wednesday, July 25, 2007, Lee Corbin wrote: > > LC> Now actually, the pointer (*this) in my opinion must refer equally > LC> to this point in both runs. But to me, I am faced with the prospect > LC> of my runtime suddenly getting cut in half. This is exactly how the > LC> MWI devotee feels regarding a sudden fifty-fifty chance of > LC> imminent death: in half the universes he's okay.... > > Problem is probably anthropomorphisation of indifferent > principle. Question is "should I worry or not?", where "worry" and > "should" are not well-defined. Naturally, I should not worry if I know that the Earth is going to be thoroughly cooked by a gamma burst 15 minutes from now: I can't do anything about it. Still, I would consider it an event worth taking note of, and it definitely would affect my priorities. In order to make this a real choice, we have to introduce the possibility that through strenuous effort (say, for example, praying very hard to the OS) you can avert the midlife termination of the 2nd run. This, then, brings it back into the normal or usual range of "worry" (not that it's especially rational). One would, for example, worry that one had not done quite enough praying. > Objective many worlds perspective is equivalent > to subjective reformulation of mind operation in the following terms. > Mind is an algorithm that selects an > action of an agent, or equivalently mind anticipates an action of an > agent, and anticipated action is performed. This is very hard to follow, sorry. For one thing, I understand that "mind" has no equivalent in German. (That's probably a very good thing, German metaphysics are already unendureable, so thank God they never stumbled upon "Mind". I'm sure you know how philosophers have spent so much time and killed so many trees over the Mind/Body problem!) At any rate, it's a sign that perhaps the term is not needed, and can be replaced with other phraseology. > Mind also anticipates performance of universe (grounded to senses, > whatever). It doesn't know with certainty what will happen, but it by 'it' I guess you me you, me, or someone > must select a single action for an agent, so it holds a measure over > possible states of the universe, selecting an action of agent with > greatest measure. Is this measure over the many-worlds, or over some state-space in our possibly infinite physical universe? > So as always selection between subjective and objective > viewpoints don't affect actions. > > Now, having 50% chance of death in either case shouldn't cause any > 'worry' to rational agent, if its actions can't affect that chance. Addressed above. > MWI trick is that performing a quantum suicide experiment is > expected under some circumstances to be selected by a rational > mind [person?] over not performing an experiment. I really don't recall debating with anyone recently who held that quantum suicide is a good idea; that is, were the options truly available (and I guess they are) then I don't know anyone who'd do it. Hmm. Of course! I guess it's not surprising that I don't know someone like that. > In subjective interpretation of MWI it corresponds to agent > having a theory of its mind's operation, so that agent can > manipulate decision making procedure of its mind, allowing > otherwise irrational decisions. Although we may have trouble understanding each other here, I don't usually find "subjective" accounts to be very valuable, although there are exceptions. It's a lot easier, anyway, to concentrate on the objective, I think. I can't imagine the distinctions you are making between "agent", "mind" and some person. :-) Anyway, if it's worthwhile, could you try rephrasing all that with entirely different language? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Jul 26 22:45:04 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:45:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Eternity for Atheists References: <007a01c7cf2a$f434de30$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <20ae01c7cfd7$320a69d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eternity for AtheistsOlga posted the "Eternity for Atheists" article by JIM HOLT. It concluded with these two paragraphs: > The most interesting possibilities for an afterlife proposed in recent years are based on hard science with a dash of speculation. > In his 1994 book, "The Physics of Immortality," Frank J. Tipler, a specialist in relativity theory at Tulane University, showed > how future beings might, in their drive for total knowledge, "resurrect" us in the form of computer simulations. (If this seems > implausible to you, think how close we are right now to "resurrecting" extinct species through knowledge of their genomes.) John > Leslie, a Canadian who ranks as one of the world's leading philosophers of cosmology, draws on quantum physics in his > painstakingly argued new book, "Immortality Defended." Each of us, Leslie submits, is immortal because our life patterns are but > an aspect of an "existentially unified" cosmos that will persist after our death. Both Tipler and Leslie are, in different ways, > heirs to the view of William James. The mind or "soul," as they see it, consists of information, not matter. And one of the > deepest principles of quantum theory, called "unitarity," forbids the disappearance of information. (Stephen Hawking used to think > you could destroy your information by heaving yourself into a black hole, but a few years ago he changed his mind.) < It's sad to see Tipler's scientific analysis stated as though it was merely on an equal footing with all these other zany views. The last paragraph is likewise more rubbish: > If death is not extinction, what might it be like? That's a question the Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick, who died five years > ago, enjoyed pondering. One of the more rococo possibilities he considered was that the dying person's organized energy might > bubble into a new universe created in that person's image. Although his reflections were inconclusive, Nozick hit on a seductive > maxim: first, imagine what form of immortality would be best; then live your life right now as though it were true. And, who > knows, it may be true. "Life is a great surprise," Vladimir Nabokov once observed. "I do not see why death should not be an even > greater one." < Lee From robotact at mail.ru Thu Jul 26 23:45:04 2007 From: robotact at mail.ru (Vladimir Nesov) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:45:04 +0400 Subject: [ExI] Repeated Experience (was Affecting Past Experience) In-Reply-To: <20a901c7cfd6$7d835b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070615005414.727.qmail@web51907.mail.re2.yahoo.com><0b5501c7c732$66f73e00$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0bc501c7c7f0$00a39ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1daa01c7c85e$2ee5ed90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1eaf01c7c9c7$86a71440$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1f4301c7cc1f$d0b788d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0707231001q7db589e9mba7bebf55e9e05ea@mail.gmail.com> <203201c7ce87$cf626f30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <48079377.20070726215800@mail.ru> <20a901c7cfd6$7d835b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <19828903440.20070727034504@mail.ru> Friday, July 27, 2007, Lee Corbin wrote: LC> Vladimir writes LC> Naturally, I should not worry if I know that the Earth is going LC> to be thoroughly cooked by a gamma burst 15 minutes from now: LC> I can't do anything about it. Still, I would consider it an event LC> worth taking note of, and it definitely would affect my priorities. (Only as a side effect of heuristic that attracts attention to processes that can significantly affect you.) - in this case discussion is about fuzzy definition of 'should' in "should worry". LC> In order to make this a real choice, we have to introduce the LC> possibility that through strenuous effort (say, for example, LC> praying very hard to the OS) you can avert the midlife termination LC> of the 2nd run. This, then, brings it back into the normal or usual LC> range of "worry" (not that it's especially rational). One would, LC> for example, worry that one had not done quite enough praying. Sounds like Pascal's wager in original scenario, since feedback of this kind wasn't considered. >> Objective many worlds perspective is equivalent >> to subjective reformulation of mind operation in the following terms. >> Mind is an algorithm that selects an >> action of an agent, or equivalently mind anticipates an action of an >> agent, and anticipated action is performed. LC> This is very hard to follow, sorry. For one thing, I understand LC> that "mind" has no equivalent in German. (That's probably a LC> very good thing, German metaphysics are already unendureable, LC> so thank God they never stumbled upon "Mind". I'm sure you LC> know how philosophers have spent so much time and killed so LC> many trees over the Mind/Body problem!) At any rate, it's LC> a sign that perhaps the term is not needed, and can be replaced LC> with other phraseology. I'm just inventing a bicycle here. Agent is a body which interacts with universe, mind is an algorithmic process running in its 'brain'. Mind isn't a person, but a framework for anticipation, predicting among other things processes attributed to self, in particular actions which are in result executed by agent (body). Person seems to correspond to agent+self. >> Mind also anticipates performance of universe (grounded to senses, >> whatever). It doesn't know with certainty what will happen, but it LC> by 'it' I guess you me you, me, or someone Since mind itself is mechanical and without personality, I refer to it as 'it'. >> must select a single action for an agent, so it holds a measure over >> possible states of the universe, selecting an action of agent with >> greatest measure. LC> Is this measure over the many-worlds, or over some state-space LC> in our possibly infinite physical universe? General case (which doesn't prohibit zero measure for vast classes of universe). >> MWI trick is that performing a quantum suicide experiment is >> expected under some circumstances to be selected by a rational >> mind [person?] over not performing an experiment. LC> I really don't recall debating with anyone recently who held LC> that quantum suicide is a good idea; that is, were the options LC> truly available (and I guess they are) then I don't know anyone LC> who'd do it. Hmm. Of course! I guess it's not surprising that LC> I don't know someone like that. Well, with not-that-bad chance there should be at least some successful adopters in that case :). But as I see it the gist of quantum suicide is that if you are ideally egoistic you shouldn't care. >> In subjective interpretation of MWI it corresponds to agent >> having a theory of its mind's operation, so that agent can >> manipulate decision making procedure of its mind, allowing >> otherwise irrational decisions. LC> Although we may have trouble understanding each other here, LC> I don't usually find "subjective" accounts to be very valuable, LC> although there are exceptions. It's a lot easier, anyway, to LC> concentrate on the objective, I think. When discussion involves observers it's inevitable... Also viewing the same issue from both points of view can help in consistency checking (which is what I tried to do for MWI from subjective point of view). -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact at mail.ru From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 27 06:20:32 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:20:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots" In-Reply-To: <024301c7cf50$11a5a470$ae074e0c@MyComputer> References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <024301c7cf50$11a5a470$ae074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <46A98EB0.1050700@mac.com> John K Clark wrote: > "Eugen Leitl" > > >> if you can destroy value to the tune of more than >> a terabuck (and counting) that that value was >> expendable, by definition. >> > > Eugen that's chump change if you're really serious about reducing > CO2 emissions. The extraordinarily silly Kyoto Protocols if > adopted by the USA would cost between 150 to 350 billion dollars > every year (that's Billion with a B) That depends a lot on how we get there, doesn't it? How many billions (with a B) are we spending and likely to spend on fossil fuels? How much in the so-called "Fight on Terrorism" not all that separable from the way we go after fossil fuels? How many billions would it cost to lose a lot of prime coastland over the next 1 - 3 decades? > and for all that it would mean > the warming you would see in 2100 would be postponed until 2106. > The models are hardly exact enough to say such a thing meaningfully which I think you would be one of the first to agree. > That's a rounding error! If we spent the same money on clean water > in just 8 years (8 YEARS!) every human on earth would have clean > potable water, this would stop 2 million deaths and prevent a > billion illnesses EVERY YEAR. So I'm supposed to get all weepy > over the prospect of global warming? BULLSHIT! > > Not bullshit. Anything with the potential to displace millions, disrupt weather patterns and harvests on a massive scale and potentially such down the thermohaline cycle cannot be cavalierly dismissed as relatively unimportant. It had best be taken damned seriously at least long enough to debunk it if that is possible. > If it turns out in a hundred years that global warming is a serious problem > then we will deal with it then, but you seem to demand that the Wright > brothers produce a solution to airport congestion before they try to build > their first airplane. > > Where is your evidence that the problem will not be serious for 100 years? - samantha > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 27 06:22:45 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:22:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49ED16@delanceyserver.videosonics.local> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <7e1e56ce0707211129g28f71066x5100e621c1b0d54f@mail.gmail.com> <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49ED16@delanceyserver.videosonics.local> Message-ID: <46A98F35.2080705@mac.com> Michael Lawrence wrote: > Anthropogenic global warming, as in enhanced greenhouse effect, can firstly be considered refuted due to the mismatch in fingerprinting between the predicted and actual atmospheric warming profile. Most scientists disagree with this. Why? > Secondly, by the temperature responses on forcing not showing negative feedback characteristics, falsifying the alleged effect of positive feedbacks. > > That's it, projections and predictions false. Hypothesis falsified. Popper philosophy end of story. > Sorry but it is not that simple. From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 27 06:32:09 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:32:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken (was "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm) In-Reply-To: <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <46A99169.2060603@mac.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > Eugen writes > > >>>> We certainly do have the money to burn on frivolous war-making. >>>> So if we want to make it happen, we can. >>>> >> Elaa wrote >> >> >>> Do you really believe that? >>> >> I certainly believe that if you can destroy value to the tune >> of more than a terabuck (and counting) that that value was >> expendable, by definition. (Whether there's considerably more >> where that came from is an open question). >> ... >> A first good step would be stop spending terabucks on breaking >> things and start spending terabucks on making things. >> > > Whether or not the war was justified in some sense, it's simplistic > to describe the choices this way. Whether or not? Surely you are not suggesting that there is any longer a shred of doubt on this score. > We might employ the same > logic to save a great deal of money on police and prisons, for > example. They don't create wealth and are very costly. > > Prisons in the US are a travesty. We lock up much too much of the population and for far too long. But actually there is a lucrative prison industry paying inmates pennies on the dollar to do work that would have much higher labor cost on the outside. > The problem, of course, is that the consequences of alternate > policies may be even more costly. Surely this was the supposition > of those wishing to invade Iraq even as it was the supposition of > those wishing to attack Japan and Germany in 1941: Huh? The cases are not remotely comparable. Never has an opinion of mine been so well vindicated when I was so vilified upon originally expressing it. There was no reason among the ones offered before and since officially that in the least justified the Iraq fiasco and the destruction of so much. Every single one has been shown to be an utter sham, another fig leave over ugly nakedness. Germany and Japan were actually dangerous. You cannot respectably claim that Iraq was and you darn well know it or certainly should by this late date. > though > much more expensive by far than the current operations, it was > deemed that in the long run failing to take these actions would > have been even more expensive. > > What a pile of horse manure. Do you actually believe anything you write or does it just flow from your fingertips while your mind is otherwise occupied? - samantha From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Jul 27 07:29:10 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:29:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46A99169.2060603@mac.com> Message-ID: <20c201c7d020$12953e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > [Eugen wrote] >>> A first good step would be stop spending terabucks on breaking >>> things and start spending terabucks on making things. >> >> Whether or not the war was justified in some sense, it's simplistic >> to describe the choices this way. > > Whether or not? Surely you are not suggesting that there is any longer > a shred of doubt on this score. I can hardly think of anything that at this point seems more a waste of my time than debating the merits of the Iraq war, and so I won't. Here I'm only replying because of nature of your over-the-top response, which is of psychological interest. >> The problem, of course, is that the consequences of alternate >> policies may be even more costly. Surely this was the supposition >> of those wishing to invade Iraq even as it was the supposition of >> those wishing to attack Japan and Germany in 1941: > > Huh? The cases are not remotely comparable. I was *merely* attacking the implied notion that one can evaluate costs simply, without taking into consideration the "roads not taken". For my prison example, one can not ---at least to many people obviously not---simply say, "Well, we shouldn't spend money hunting people down and locking them up, because that is wasteful and doesn't produce any positive result. The money instead should be spend on schools and hospitals." Now I do not, of course, mean to say that anyone is saying that. But the reason that no one says that is that there would be woeful costs associated with not pursueing criminals. The costs would not be immediate, and probably could not be reckoned as easy as budget items for police and prisons are. The analogy is easy, nothing deep here: we often must must take into accoutn the vague costs of not taking some courses of action. In the Iraq war, for instance, one would have to consider the likelihood that Saddam Hussein would eventually have built a bomb, or that an arms race would right now be going on between Iran and Iraq. But I do not mean at all to debate the likelihood of that---I simply am affirming that these are---of course---what went or is going though the minds of those who favored the invasion. >> much more expensive by far than the current operations, it was >> deemed that in the long run failing to take these actions would >> have been even more expensive. >> > What a pile of horse manure. Do you actually believe anything you write Well, you seriously entertain the idea that I did not? > or does it just flow from your fingertips while your mind is otherwise > occupied? I can only serve this up as an illustration of absurd narrowmindedness: How is it, I wonder to myself, that people become so wrapped up in the conviction of the correctness of their own opinions---a form of bigotry, really---that they begin to seriously entertain the idea that those who disagree with them must not be sincere. This kind of bigotry usually comes from hanging out with and exchanging ideas only with those with whom one agrees on whatever topic is under consideration. If you talk to enough atheists, and (somehow!) never hear from religious people, I suppose that folks naturally descend into "I cannot believe that they really suppose that there actually is a supernational being..." IN short, I'm wondering just where I'd have to evolve to in order to utter words like "Do you actually believe anything you write or does it just flow from your fingertips while your mind is otherwise occupied?". Maybe if I had a really really bad day? :-) Lee From Michael at videosonics.com Fri Jul 27 09:12:46 2007 From: Michael at videosonics.com (Michael Lawrence) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:12:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com><7e1e56ce0707211129g28f71066x5100e621c1b0d54f@mail.gmail.com><750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49ED16@delanceyserver.videosonics.local> <46A98F35.2080705@mac.com> Message-ID: <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49ED25@delanceyserver.videosonics.local> samantha wrote: >> Michael Lawrence wrote: >> Anthropogenic global warming, as in enhanced greenhouse effect, can firstly >> be considered refuted due to the mismatch in fingerprinting between the >> predicted and actual atmospheric warming profile. >Most scientists disagree with this. Why? Who are 'most"? I challenge your assumption. >> Secondly, by the temperature responses on forcing not showing negative >> feedback characteristics, falsifying the alleged effect of positive >> feedbacks. >> >> That's it, projections and predictions false. Hypothesis falsified. Popper >> philosophy end of story. > Sorry but it is not that simple. No need to apologise. I just wonder how many more years of no warming have to occur before the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis gets a critical look. Michael. Requested references: fingerprinting: http://www.climatescience.gov/Lib...inalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf page 18 (116) fig 5.3 Four independent models agree about the following fingerprints: (1) that significant warming occurred around the equator at an altitude of 8 and 12km, (2) that at the altitude of 16km there exists a transition from warm to cool, (3) that there is some warming in lower levels in the SH and arctic (45o-75o S). And now for reality: (1) Cooling at 4km and no significant warming, (2) transition from warming to cooling at 12km, (3) SH cooling while majority of models show warming. Other examples exist. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3622 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Jul 27 15:08:39 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:08:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com><7e1e56ce0707211129g28f71066x5100e621c1b0d54f@mail.gmail.com><750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49ED16@delanceyserver.videosonics.local><46A98F35.2080705@mac.com> <750F2420704C0148A533E717A633CBBE49ED25@delanceyserver.videosonics.local> Message-ID: <20ef01c7d060$a365e3f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> The link Michael posted, > Requested references: > fingerprinting: > > http://www.climatescience.gov/Lib...inalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf doesn't work for me. Perhaps he meant http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf Lee >> Anthropogenic global warming, as in enhanced greenhouse effect, >> can firstly >> be considered refuted due to the mismatch in >> fingerprinting between the predicted and actual atmospheric >> warming profile. >> >> Secondly, by the temperature responses on forcing not showing negative >> feedback characteristics, falsifying the alleged effect of positive >> feedbacks > > page 18 (116) fig 5.3 > > Four independent models agree about the following fingerprints: > > (1) that significant warming occurred around the equator at an > altitude of 8 and 12km, (2) that at the altitude of 16km there > exists a transition from warm to cool, (3) that there is some > warming in lower levels in the SH and arctic (45o-75o S). > > And now for reality: > > (1) Cooling at 4km and no significant warming, > (2) transition from warming to cooling at 12km, > (3) SH cooling while majority of models show warming. > Other examples exist. From jonkc at att.net Fri Jul 27 16:34:08 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:34:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots" References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com><20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org><024301c7cf50$11a5a470$ae074e0c@MyComputer> <46A98EB0.1050700@mac.com> Message-ID: <003101c7d06b$fe87f6f0$b5064e0c@MyComputer> "samantha" > Anything with the potential to displace millions, disrupt weather patterns > and harvests on a massive scale and potentially such down the thermohaline > cycle cannot be cavalierly dismissed as relatively > unimportant. Even if every word you say above is true (and I have no reason to think the perfect temperature for human beings is the exact temperature the Earth happens to be at right now) I would still dismiss the subject as unimportant. Why? Because barring some HUGE breakthrough in technology a significant reduction in CO2 emissions is just not going to happen, no way no how. You can scream and yell all you want that it should happen but from a practical standpoint it really is like arguing "how many angels can sit on the head of a pin?" > That depends a lot on how we get there, doesn't it? How many billions > (with a B) are we spending and likely to spend on fossil fuels? How much > in the so-called "Fight on Terrorism" not all that separable from > the way we go after fossil fuels? How many billions would it cost to > lose > a lot of prime coastland over the next 1 - 3 decades? Or "how many rhetorical questions can one fit into a paragraph?" John K Clark From sjatkins at mac.com Fri Jul 27 17:10:53 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:10:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken In-Reply-To: <20c201c7d020$12953e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46A99169.2060603@mac.com> <20c201c7d020$12953e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <46AA271D.7070300@mac.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > > >> [Eugen wrote] >> >>>> A first good step would be stop spending terabucks on breaking >>>> things and start spending terabucks on making things. >>>> >>> Whether or not the war was justified in some sense, it's simplistic >>> to describe the choices this way. >>> >> Whether or not? Surely you are not suggesting that there is any longer >> a shred of doubt on this score. >> > > I can hardly think of anything that at this point seems more a waste > of my time than debating the merits of the Iraq war, and so I won't. > Here I'm only replying because of nature of your over-the-top > response, which is of psychological interest. > Typical. Your post is not of "psychological interest"? Psychologizing posters is truly "over the top" and a total waste of time. I spoke to your seeming refusal to reach any conclusions and rather, imho, dishonest insinuation about the Iraq War that fly in the face of what we have seen. > >>> The problem, of course, is that the consequences of alternate >>> policies may be even more costly. Surely this was the supposition >>> of those wishing to invade Iraq even as it was the supposition of >>> those wishing to attack Japan and Germany in 1941: >>> >> Huh? The cases are not remotely comparable. >> > > I was *merely* attacking the implied notion that one can > evaluate costs simply, without taking into consideration the > "roads not taken". No you were not merely doing that. You were drawing a parallel by your choice of examples. That parallel does not have merit. I do not believe it was innocent. > For my prison example, one can not > ---at least to many people obviously not---simply say, > "Well, we shouldn't spend money hunting people down > and locking them up, because that is wasteful and doesn't > produce any positive result. The money instead should be > spend on schools and hospitals." > > Now I do not, of course, mean to say that anyone is saying > that. But the reason that no one says that is that there would > be woeful costs associated with not pursueing criminals. Side note as written is that a lot of "criminals" locked up in the US have committed no "crime" that should have been labeled as such much less lead to incarceration. > The > costs would not be immediate, and probably could not be > reckoned as easy as budget items for police and prisons are. > The analogy is easy, nothing deep here: we often must > must take into accoutn the vague costs of not taking some > courses of action. In the Iraq war, for instance, one would > have to consider the likelihood that Saddam Hussein would > eventually have built a bomb, This is utter empty speculation. Iraq was rather strongly monitored and actively bombed in parts of its industry before this conflict. The odds of this are extremely small. And since when should we conduct international affairs by invading every country that might do something someday that might be a threat? Do you really thing this is a valid way of considering our actions? > or that an arms race would > right now be going on between Iran and Iraq. Not likely although we actively created and sustained such a race not that long ago. > But I do not > mean at all to debate the likelihood of that---I simply am > affirming that these are---of course---what went or is going > though the minds of those who favored the invasion. > > And what of these purported reasons? Do they hold water and explain anything or not? >>> much more expensive by far than the current operations, it was >>> deemed that in the long run failing to take these actions would >>> have been even more expensive. >>> >>> >> What a pile of horse manure. Do you actually believe anything you write >> > > Well, you seriously entertain the idea that I did not? > > >> or does it just flow from your fingertips while your mind is otherwise >> occupied? >> > > I can only serve this up as an illustration of absurd narrowmindedness: > How is it, I wonder to myself, that people become so wrapped up > in the conviction of the correctness of their own opinions---a form > of bigotry, really---that they begin to seriously entertain the idea that > those who disagree with them must not be sincere. > > Because in this case on this topic the facts are overwhelmingly against any implication that maybe this fiasco is better than not having entered into it. There is a place for relatively low levels of certainty but this is not it. Accusing me of narrow mindedness for saying so is absurd. > This kind of bigotry usually comes from hanging out with and Bigotry? What? > > exchanging ideas only with those with whom one agrees on > whatever topic is under consideration. If you talk to enough > atheists, and (somehow!) never hear from religious people, > I suppose that folks naturally descend into "I cannot believe > that they really suppose that there actually is a supernational > being..." > > IN short, I'm wondering just where I'd have to evolve to in > order to utter words like "Do you actually believe anything > you write or does it just flow from your fingertips while your > mind is otherwise occupied?". Maybe if I had a really > really bad day? :-) > > I have watched you float ideas over and over again that don't hold water on much of any examination. Why do you do that? If I did it I would either have an agenda behind floating those ideas or I simply would not be thinking it through. But I do admit that I should not assume that you are that much like me. So what is the explanation? - samantha > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Jul 27 23:05:42 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:05:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46A99169.2060603@mac.com> <20c201c7d020$12953e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46AA271D.7070300@mac.com> Message-ID: <20f701c7d0a3$2d4e6eb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes >> I can hardly think of anything that at this point seems more a waste >> of my time than debating the merits of the Iraq war, and so I won't. >> Here I'm only replying because of nature of your over-the-top >> response, which is of psychological interest. > > Typical. Your post is not of "psychological interest"? Psychologizing > posters is truly "over the top" and a total waste of time. I cannot apologize for being interested in the psychology of why we adopt and cling to the various positions that we do, sorry. Perhaps you are uncharitably interpreting what I meant by "of psychological interest". Perhaps not. > I spoke to your seeming refusal to reach any conclusions and rather, imho, > dishonest insinuation about the Iraq War that fly in the face of what we > have seen. Please. :-) Dishonest? Must we resort to such accusations? Firstly, please calmly consider that not even in mathematics (!) is every position falsifiable. That may come as a surprise, and it's true that many people would consider mathematical hypotheses not capable of falsification to be over in some other realm, say philosophy, rather than pure mathematics. But of course, others do disagree. (E.g., is the continuum hypothesis falsifiable? We tend to think not, but some mathematical platonists demur, even if only a bit.) Scientific hypotheses *tend* to be falsifiable, though the tendency is considerably weakened compared to mathematics. (I apologize if this seeming digression offends you, or causes anxiety or discomfort.) But as we know from history, many scientific hypotheses were "falsified" all right, but their adherants did not entirely concede the point. They had various excuses (or, from their point of view, reasons). But politics? I hope that you really don't think that a political hypothesis, e.g., the French Revolution was justified (or did more good than harm), or the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies was justified (or was a logical move), can ever be falsified. They cannot be. For no matter what happens, the most that can ever be said---and then, probably not by everyone---is that certain awkwardnesses infect one position or another. Economics is another case. Most economists believe that the idea of a minumum wage conferring benefit on a society has been refuted. So I'm just reminding you of the most that you can expect from a political or philosophical discussion. Were the situation in Iraq to begin to develop favorably to the army's purpose, or even if the entire effort ended quite successfully (which I concede is a long shot), there is no way that you would admit that it was probably a good idea---whatever happened, you'd have other explanations. It's just the way it is. So, same for me. If GNP goes up when some economist has given solid reasons why it will go down, do you think that he recants his reasons? No, he will point to extenuation circumstances. Is anything ever settled? At one point Julian Simon and Paul Erlich bet $1000 on whether the price of minerals would go up or down. Of course, each of them supposed that his adversary---upon being shown wrong---would have the support of his hypotheses thereby weakened. But of course Paul Erlich, when he paid off the bet, still believed in what he had been saying all along. There were merely extenuating circumstances that caused him to lose in this particular case, and that his general conjectures that the human race was soon to run out of these imporant materials was correct. It's always like this, and I hope that you don't expect more. >> I was *merely* attacking the implied notion that one can >> evaluate costs simply, without taking into consideration the >> "roads not taken". > > No you were not merely doing that. You were drawing a parallel > by your choice of examples. That parallel does not have merit. > I do not believe it was innocent. Well, it was innocent. Yes, it was extreme, and yes, it wasn't a very good parallel, but what I was attempting in all sincereity to do was to rebut a *principle* (i.e., if I recall correctly, that one cannot merely allude to the financial burden of a course of action independent of an investigation of the costs of alternatives---as the subject line of this post attests). >> But I do not >> mean at all to debate the likelihood of that---I simply am >> affirming that these are---of course---what went or is going >> though the minds of those who favored the invasion. > > And what of these purported reasons? Do they hold water and explain > anything or not? Well, that is exactly what I want to avoid getting into. Sorry, I just don't have time for it, and besides, its pretty fruitless (although sometimes quite entertaining). >>> What a pile of horse manure. Do you actually believe anything you write > This is utter empty speculation. Okay, so you're not the only one who can making alarming accusations: >> This kind of bigotry usually comes from hanging out with and > > Bigotry? What? Consult the dictionary if you must. I mean it in the sense of adopting a position so strongly and with so little conception of possible error that one becomes actually shrill and not just a little narrow-minded. > I have watched you float ideas over and over again that don't hold water > on much of any examination. Why do you do that? Translation: you really don't agree with me on a large variety of issues. There are many thoughtful people who happen to agree with me on these issues and who do not agree with you. Thus your characterizations are ungenerous, to say the least. I want to ask what good they do, besides allowing you to vent. Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Jul 27 23:56:49 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:56:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken In-Reply-To: <20f701c7d0a3$2d4e6eb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200707280007.l6S07Fhr004892@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > Subject: Re: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken > > Samantha writes... >>Samantha > > >> ... > > Lee Lee and Samantha, yours interesting discussion just to watch from a respectful distance. Thanks to both for keeping it civil. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Jul 27 14:32:36 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:32:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken In-Reply-To: <20c201c7d020$12953e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46A99169.2060603@mac.com> <20c201c7d020$12953e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 7/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > I can hardly think of anything that at this point seems more a waste > of my time than debating the merits of the Iraq war, and so I won't. > Here I'm only replying because of nature of your over-the-top > response, which is of psychological interest. ... > I can only serve this up as an illustration of absurd narrowmindedness: > How is it, I wonder to myself, that people become so wrapped up > in the conviction of the correctness of their own opinions---a form > of bigotry, really---that they begin to seriously entertain the idea that > those who disagree with them must not be sincere. Fascinating... - Jef From andres at neuralgrid.net Sat Jul 28 08:18:25 2007 From: andres at neuralgrid.net (Andres Colon) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:18:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanists and Puerto Rico Message-ID: If you are or happen to know a transhumanist from Puerto Rico (or anywhere in the caribbean), please contact me at Andres at purenova.com. Thanks! Andres, Thoughtware.TV - Transhumanist Television -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neomorphy at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 08:48:20 2007 From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:48:20 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Eternity for Atheists In-Reply-To: <007a01c7cf2a$f434de30$6401a8c0@brainiac> References: <007a01c7cf2a$f434de30$6401a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: Why worry about eternity? The experience of 1000 years is mostly beyond our evolved brains. Heck, I don't even have much of a grasp of what a decade feels like, and I've lived several of them. When looking at the daytime moon, the lit side points directly at the sun. Although I'm more familiar with this than I actually am with looking at the moon and sun in the same sky quadrant. Nevertheless, it still sorta looks like the sun, moon and most distant mountains are roughly the same distance away. Our brains just aren't evolved to deal with scales much bigger than a few kilometres. I'm not fussed with living forever. A physical millennium of life will probably feel a lot longer than most people's grasp of 'ever' anyhoo, and that's not counting the effects of up-shifting mental processing speeds. When I plan to have a succession of medium-term relationships of about 100 years each, I'm still thinking way longer than many when they wed, promising "for ever and ever!" =P Forever is a really, really, really long time. Let's try dealing with giga-days, before we start worrying about running out of descriptors -- Olie On 7/26/07, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > *Eternity for Atheists * > > *By**Jim Holt is a contributing writer for the magazine.* > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 28 14:28:14 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:28:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape Message-ID: <200707281428.l6SESGol007774@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> Renewable Energy Projects Will Devour Huge Amounts of Land, Warns Researcher IAN SAMPLE, Science Correspondent - The Guardian (U.K.) Large-scale renewable energy projects will cause widespread environmental damage by industrialising vast swaths of countryside, a leading scientist claims today. The warning follows an analysis of the amount of land that renewable energy resources, including wind farms, biofuel crops and photovoltaic solar cells, require to produce substantial amounts of power. Jesse Ausubel, a professor of environmental science and director of the Human Environment programme at Rockefeller University in New York, found that enormous stretches of countryside would have to be converted into intensive farmland or developed with buildings and access roads for renewable energy plants to make a significant contribution to global energy demands. Prof Ausubel reached his conclusions by ranking renewable energies according to the amount of power they produce for each square metre of land. The assessment allows direct comparison between the different approaches, based on the impact they will have on the surrounding landscape. The analysis showed that damming rivers to make use of hydroelectric power was among the most harmful to the landscape, producing around 0.1 watts of power per square metre. The world's largest dam, the Three Gorges power station on the Yangtze in China, stores nearly 40bn cubic metres of water, submerging land that was previously home to more than 1 million people. Biofuel crops and wind energy fared better in the study, with both generating around 1.2w to a square metre. Leading the renewable energy sources were photovoltaic solar cells, which use sunlight to create electricity, at around six to seven watts to a square metre. Prof Ausubel investigated how much land renewable energies would need to provide electricity for large populations and compared them to output from nuclear power stations. In one example he showed that damming rainfall and flooding the entire Canadian province of Ontario would generate hydroelectric power equivalent to 80% of that produced by the country's 25 nuclear power plants. Another calculation revealed that to meet US energy demands for 2005 with wind power would require constant winds blowing onto wind farms covering more than 780,000 square kilometres of land, the area of Texas and Louisiana combined. A comparison of solar energy with nuclear found that a hectare of photovoltaic cells was needed to produce the same amount of power as one litre of fuel in the core of a nuclear reactor. The report breaks what Prof Ausubel calls the "taboo of talking about the strong negative aspects of renewables", by focusing on examples that highlight their limitations. "When most people think of renewables and their impact, they're mistaking pleasant landscaping with what would be a massive industrial transformation of the landscape," he said. "A fundamental credo of being green is that you cause minimal interference with the landscape. We should be farming less land, logging less forest and trawling less ocean - disturbing the landscape less and sparing land for nature. But all of these renewable sources of energy are incredibly invasive and aggressive with regard to nature. Renewables may be renewable, but they are not green," he added. The report, which appears in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology today, also criticises plans for widespread farming of biofuels. With current technology, Prof Ausubel estimates that one to two hectares of land would be needed to produce fuel for each of the world's 700m cars and other motor vehicles. "From an environmental point of view the biofuels business is a madness," he said. Prof Ausubel said that despite technical and political concerns, nuclear power plants still ranked as the most environmentally-friendly for large conurbations. "The good news about nuclear is that over the past 50 years all of the forms of waste storage seem to have worked." Power compared Dams Hydroelectric energy is the least efficient way of using land to produce power. One square metre on average produces 0.1 watts. Biofuels A generator burning biomass requires crops from 250,000 hectares to match the electricity output of a nuclear power station. Wind energy Wind farms generate around 1.2 watts for every square metre of land. Solar power Photovoltaic cells covering an area of 150,000 square kilometres would be needed to meet US electricity needs for a year. To power New York city would take 12,000 square kilometres, about the size of Connecticut. [[Note: no allowance made here for technical improvements in solar, for retrofitting of roofs or roads, etc--D.B.]] From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 28 15:33:51 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 08:33:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: <200707281428.l6SESGol007774@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <200707281534.l6SFXxMW007700@reva.xtremeunix.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:28 AM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape > > > Renewable > Energy Projects Will Devour Huge Amounts of Land, Warns Researcher > IAN SAMPLE, Science Correspondent - The Guardian (U.K.) > > > Large-scale renewable energy projects will cause widespread > environmental damage by industrialising vast swaths of countryside, a > leading scientist claims today. ... Ja, we knew that. > The analysis showed that damming rivers to make use of hydroelectric > power was among the most harmful to the landscape, producing around > 0.1 watts of power per square metre. ... Of course, dams are not *primarily* for the purpose of generating power, but rather for water control. For this analysis we must somehow take into account the value of property not destroyed by flooding because of the dams. > The world's largest dam, ...submerging land that was previously home > to more than 1 million people... If we take that into account, we get to add all the energy saved from those million people not living there anymore. > Biofuel crops and wind energy fared better in the study, with both > generating around 1.2w to a square metre... Furthermore, we have just begun to find the most efficient biofuels. That is an area that will improve dramatically. .... > > Another calculation revealed that to meet US energy demands for 2005 > with wind power would require constant winds blowing onto wind farms > covering more than 780,000 square kilometres of land, the area of > Texas and Louisiana combined... This is an understatement in a way. Wind power takes a lot of area, but it doesn't actually use up the land. Biofuel crops can be grown among wind turbines (an example is near the Altamont Pass in Taxifornia). PVs can also be collocated with the turbines. > > The report breaks what Prof Ausubel calls the "taboo of talking about > the strong negative aspects of renewables"... We know of the negatives, but there are many positives. Countries all have their own wind and their own sunlight, even if some have more than others. No need to fight over resources. > ... they're mistaking pleasant landscaping > with what would be a massive industrial transformation of the > landscape," he said. It's all in the way it is described. Rather let us transform massive landscaping with pleasant industrial transformation. > "A fundamental credo of being green is that you cause minimal > interference with the landscape... So goes the dogma. > We should be farming less land, > logging less forest and trawling less ocean - disturbing the > landscape less and sparing land for nature. But all of these > renewable sources of energy are incredibly invasive and aggressive > with regard to nature. Renewables may be renewable, but they are not > green," he added... If one buys into this notion, one keeps running up against the same attitude: two legs bad, four legs good. But there are a lot of us two legged things who disagree, and a whole lot more coming in the near future. For instance, as China becomes wealthier, they will want more children than the one-child family that has been given to them. Watch for a wave of two child families to start showing up in China. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Jul 28 16:53:56 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:53:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Aharonov-Bohm Effect References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com><4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no><7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070315175649.022ec7e8@satx.rr.com><003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070318140758.0236d6c8@satx.rr.com><002b01c76a51$5dbfbad0$0fba1f97@archimede> <0aa301c7c695$8165d5f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <000301c7c70d$dca19df0$33921f97@archimede> Message-ID: <213b01c7d138$5344f3b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Serafino writes ----- Original Message ----- From: "scerir" To: "Lee Corbin" ; "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:27 AM Actually, let me quote from your slightly earlier email again this passage which was so well-written and clear: > The A-B effect is interesting exactly because there > is a real, physical, observable effect on charged > particles, ascribable to the 4-potential A_mu, > even when the field, say the EM tensor F_mu nu, > is zero. The two important features of the A-B effect > in fact are: a) the magnetic field is confined in > a region completely inaccessible to electrons, and > electrons propagate in a region where EM fields are > zero; b) the vector potential A must instead be > nonvanishing in the region where electrons propagate, The more I understand about this, indeed the more outrageous it is. But I have one more question, below. > As you remember the famous psi-wavefunction of QM has > its roots in Einstein's conception of 'Gespensterfelder' > (a ghost field, *devoid of momentum and energy*, guiding > the particles).... > ... > In the A-B example the action of the 'Gespensterfelder' > on each individual electron changes its trajectory, due > to the presence of the quantum potential (vector potential) > and results in the overall shift of the interference > pattern, even if the 'Gespensterfelder' is devoid of > momentum and energy, and even if the EM tensor (F_mu nu) > is zero. The shielding restricts the EM tensor (EM field, that is) to a region where it cannot affect the electron's path. The magnetic field in particular cannot affect the electron's path, nor can any electric field! But the *potential* can! I had thought that I had a glimmer of an understanding by comparing this to the situation with gravitational fields. But the problem is this: consider the effect of the gravitational potention (concretely, say, on the rate at which clocks advance). Indeed, at the center of a (fictional) hollow Earth, there is no gravitational force (and, so I might suppose, no gravitational field?). But of course the potential is still there, and the clocks obediently ---along with all other physical processes---proceed more slowly. But that is related to the fact that the potential is not changing in this (fictional) case at the center! Outside the Earth, however, the potential must be changing with the radial distance, and this is exactly because there *is* a gravitational field. So in the A-B effect, is the vector potential outside the (shielded) solenoid different along the path that the electron takes? That is, if X and Y are two points of the path, is there or isn't there a difference in the strength of the vector potential? Surely the answer must be that there is *no* change! (Else we would have to say that the EM field itself was there, right?) So how, in the electron's journey, as it comes in from very, very far away, can it begin to be affected by some potential that is not changing over distance? (I hope that I am not so thoroughly confused that none of the above makes sense!) > (This is the reason why sometimes people say that > in the A-B effect the momentum and energy > conservation principles do not hold). Sheer heresy, of course! Below, I have the rest of your post for reference. Lee > Even Bohr conceded that Einstein's > use of such picturesque phrases as Gespensterfelder > 'implied no tendency to mysticism, but illuminated > rather a profound humor behind his piercing remarks.' > As you also remember the very concept of ghost field > (ghost waves) has been developed by deBroglie and, > later, by Bohm (with his Bohmian mechanics). > > In Bohmian mechanics a solution of the Schroedinger > eq. is regarded as an objectively existing real field - > not so so different from the 'Gespensterfelder' > (though in general it does propagate in a 3n-dimensional > configuration space) - which guides the particle trough > its trajectory. Moreover the action of this real field > on a particle is non-classical (since the particle is > assumed not to react *dynamically* on the real field acting > on it) and is represented by a suitably defined 'quantum > potential Q', whose features are different from the > classical potentials, and whose exact mathematical > expression can be deduced from the solution of the > Schroedinger eq., written in a specific form. > > For sure you have already realized it is a logically > compelling requirement of any theory using test-particles > and (ghost or real) field concepts that there is a > 'dialectical' interplay between particles and fields. > > In the A-B effect the situation is somewhat conceptually > analogous to that in classical electrodynamics (and maybe > in gravitation, as you pointed out) where the abstract > notion of fields has a physical manifestation only by > the action (non classical though) on charged particles. > > ... > Summing up, what can we say? It is a rather messy > situation. Ghost fields, invented by Einstein > (around 1909/1912 I think) are still there. Like > any other ghost they appear, from time to time. From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jul 28 17:35:46 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:35:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: <200707281428.l6SESGol007774@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> References: <200707281428.l6SESGol007774@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070728173546.GE20274@leitl.org> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 09:28:14AM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > Large-scale renewable energy projects will cause widespread > environmental damage by industrialising vast swaths of countryside, a > leading scientist claims today. The warning follows an analysis of I don't think so. Both about the environmental damage, but especially about the "leading scientist". I've never ever heard of the Aus-Uebel fellow. > the amount of land that renewable energy resources, including wind > farms, biofuel crops and photovoltaic solar cells, require to produce The hodgepodge of technologies purportedly studied doesn't forebode well for the study. It sounds like a hatchet job. > substantial amounts of power. > > Jesse Ausubel, a professor of environmental science and director of > the Human Environment programme at Rockefeller University in New > York, found that enormous stretches of countryside would have to be How about the enormous stretches of contryside which are already covered with structures? If 0.6% of land is enough for Germany (where 12% of entire land is sealed, and some 6% is covered with actual structures -- about zero of them solar) most other places would fare much better. > converted into intensive farmland or developed with buildings and Farmland? It's clear enough that biofuels don't work, with the possible exception of algaculture. > access roads for renewable energy plants to make a significant If the renewable energy plant is your home, there's a very nice access road to it already. > contribution to global energy demands. > > Prof Ausubel reached his conclusions by ranking renewable energies > according to the amount of power they produce for each square metre > of land. The assessment allows direct comparison between the > different approaches, based on the impact they will have on the > surrounding landscape. If your premise is bogus, no wonder the study is a crock of strong fertilizer. > The analysis showed that damming rivers to make use of hydroelectric > power was among the most harmful to the landscape, producing around Hydro is developed, there's not much more where that came from. I wonder why one would study a technology which can't be used. > 0.1 watts of power per square metre. The world's largest dam, the > Three Gorges power station on the Yangtze in China, stores nearly > 40bn cubic metres of water, submerging land that was previously home > to more than 1 million people. > > Biofuel crops and wind energy fared better in the study, with both > generating around 1.2w to a square metre. Leading the renewable Given that the solar constant is 1.4 kW/m^2, a factor of 1000 is missing here. (And if you think it's less than half that, then you're presuming too much already). > energy sources were photovoltaic solar cells, which use sunlight to > create electricity, at around six to seven watts to a square metre. More strange thinking. You do not analyse a renewable source by looking at a single scalar. Coincidentally, right now wind is eating PV for breakfast. It will take a few more years until PV can compete with wind. > Prof Ausubel investigated how much land renewable energies would need > to provide electricity for large populations and compared them to > output from nuclear power stations. And he did look at more than the area of a nuke plant in his analysis, I hopes? I hopes? > In one example he showed that damming rainfall and flooding the > entire Canadian province of Ontario would generate hydroelectric > power equivalent to 80% of that produced by the country's 25 nuclear > power plants. Let me guess, this study was funded by nuke people. > Another calculation revealed that to meet US energy demands for 2005 > with wind power would require constant winds blowing onto wind farms > covering more than 780,000 square kilometres of land, the area of > Texas and Louisiana combined. A comparison of solar energy with > nuclear found that a hectare of photovoltaic cells was needed to > produce the same amount of power as one litre of fuel in the core of > a nuclear reactor. No guessing. This study *was* funded by nuke people. > The report breaks what Prof Ausubel calls the "taboo of talking about > the strong negative aspects of renewables", by focusing on examples O'RLY. That leading scientist is sure not reading much. > that highlight their limitations. "When most people think of > renewables and their impact, they're mistaking pleasant landscaping > with what would be a massive industrial transformation of the > landscape," he said. No shit, Sherlock. Wherever people live, they transform the landscape. > "A fundamental credo of being green is that you cause minimal > interference with the landscape. We should be farming less land, > logging less forest and trawling less ocean - disturbing the > landscape less and sparing land for nature. But all of these Totally on the same page. > renewable sources of energy are incredibly invasive and aggressive > with regard to nature. Renewables may be renewable, but they are not > green," he added. As opposed to what, exactly? Nuclear industry? Burning dead dinos? That guy is starting to pissing me off, big time. > The report, which appears in the International Journal of Nuclear > Governance, Economy and Ecology today, also criticises plans for I *knew* it! A journal nobody ever heard of, and with a rather unlikely combination. > widespread farming of biofuels. With current technology, Prof Ausubel > estimates that one to two hectares of land would be needed to produce > fuel for each of the world's 700m cars and other motor vehicles. And strangely enough, an electroscooter can carry its own PV panels, and recharge right there in the parking lot. Land? Which land? That land is your land, that land is somebody else's land, but it's damn sure PORTABLE LAND!!!!!!eleven! > "From an environmental point of view the biofuels business is a > madness," he said. It depends. It's mostly madness, with the possible exception of single-cell algae. > > Prof Ausubel said that despite technical and political concerns, > nuclear power plants still ranked as the most > environmentally-friendly for large conurbations. "The good news about MUAHAHAHAHA. The gall of the fellow. And the ignorance of the press, to print that drivel uncommented. > nuclear is that over the past 50 years all of the forms of waste > storage seem to have worked." ... An eunuch priest of the highest caste sets tapers before a pair of old shoes. ... The dog worries the dirty glove which has seen many better centuries. ... The blind Norns strike a tiny silver anvil with fingers that are mallets. Upon the metal lies a length of blue light. > Power compared > > Dams > Hydroelectric energy is the least efficient way of using land to > produce power. One square metre on average produces 0.1 watts. In terms of the nukular analysis, he should have looked at the volume of the hydroturbine. And just on that, nothing else. Let's compare wombats with furry fruit, shan't we? > Biofuels > A generator burning biomass requires crops from 250,000 hectares to > match the electricity output of a nuclear power station. > > Wind energy > Wind farms generate around 1.2 watts for every square metre of land. And of course the turbine just eats that piece of the land, or the sea, leaving a gaping hole in the landscape behind. And the sea, what about the sea? What does he do with the bloody sea, plow it, or build malls upon it? What about hydro turbines in the tides and streams under sea surface? Do these destroy km^2 of H2O, magickally? The fish wept, and turned vobla. > Solar power > Photovoltaic cells covering an area of 150,000 square kilometres > would be needed to meet US electricity needs for a year. To power New > York city would take 12,000 square kilometres, about the size of Connecticut. So let's erase Connecticut off the map, right? Wait, it doesn't work that way. Solar is decentral, and it doesn't make your house unlivable. The opposite, in fact. > [[Note: no allowance made here for technical improvements in solar, > for retrofitting of roofs or roads, etc--D.B.]] Damn right. And it makes no allowances by simply making the bloody U.S. appoach EU in terms of energy efficiency. Nevermind that standby devices and wall warts could make many ten nukular plants obsolete. And don't get me started on home insulation, passive solar, and roof PV driving air conditioning. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 28 17:20:45 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:20:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: <200707281534.l6SFXxMW007700@reva.xtremeunix.com> References: <200707281534.l6SFXxMW007700@reva.xtremeunix.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:33:51 -0400, spike wrote: >> The world's largest dam, ...submerging land that was previously home >> to more than 1 million people... > > If we take that into account, we get to add all the energy saved from > those million people not living there anymore. Do we? Seems to me that unless we killed them or prevented their births, those million displaced people consume roughly the same amount of energy as otherwise, albeit from different locations. -gts From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jul 28 17:55:52 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:55:52 +0200 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: References: <200707281534.l6SFXxMW007700@reva.xtremeunix.com> Message-ID: <20070728175552.GF20274@leitl.org> On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 01:20:45PM -0400, gts wrote: > Do we? Seems to me that unless we killed them or prevented their births, > those million displaced people consume roughly the same amount of energy > as otherwise, albeit from different locations. Psst! If VHEMT is the question, Vivoleum is the answer! From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Jul 28 18:29:01 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:29:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200707281829.l6SIT8sH018566@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts > Subject: Re: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the > landscape > > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:33:51 -0400, spike wrote: > > >> The world's largest dam, ...submerging land that was previously home > >> to more than 1 million people... > > > > If we take that into account, we get to add all the energy saved from > > those million people not living there anymore. > > Do we? Seems to me that unless we killed them or prevented their births, > those million displaced people consume roughly the same amount of energy > as otherwise, albeit from different locations. > > -gts Actually that was kind of a gag, g. {8^D A lame one, for sure. But it depends on how you count it. Consider the illegal aliens pouring across the border into the US from Mexico every day. On this side, they devour more energy resources than they would if they lived to the south, yet since greenhouse gas emissions are measured by oil imports and production within each nation's borders, this illegal immigration comes out on the books as a massive increase in the US consumption of oil and a decrease in Mexican energy consumption. Both changes are per capita, since the illegals in the US do not show up on the census-takers roles. (They flee when any government type comes around.) Similarly, Mexico might not take into account that a portion of their population has vacated to the north, which would cause their population estimates to be high, while their oil consumption would actually drop. Keep this in mind when you see per capita energy consumption: those calculations do not account for illegals in the country. No one knows how many there are, but estimates vary from 8 million to over 20 million in the US. The numbers are growing daily. When the Kyoto agreement debates were going on, I never did hear anyone mention that the US cannot sign such an agreement, since we have no practical way of stopping the flood of illegal immigration. Or none that I know of. Anyone have a suggestion?). If we had a clause in the Kyoto agreement that allows us to calculate our per capita energy use including an estimate of the numbers of undocumented residents, then are further given the freedom to estimate those numbers by any means we wish, then and only then could we have a chance of meeting the per capita energy use goals. Of course every country would meet all energy goals without changing a thing other than their estimates of the numbers of illegal immigrants. We wouldn't know how many illegals we have until we know how much oil we used. In all the debate a few years ago, I did notice that the nations most eager to sign on the Kyoto bandwagon were those that already have low birth rates and strict immigration law. I don't see how the Kyoto agreement takes into account those nations (such as the US) which anticipate massive population growth thru illegal immigration and high birth rates among illegals. spike From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 28 18:50:15 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:50:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: <20070728175552.GF20274@leitl.org> References: <200707281534.l6SFXxMW007700@reva.xtremeunix.com> <20070728175552.GF20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 13:55:52 -0400, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Psst! If VHEMT is the question, Vivoleum is the answer! Viva Vivoleum! -gts From sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jul 28 19:12:00 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:12:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: <200707281534.l6SFXxMW007700@reva.xtremeunix.com> References: <200707281534.l6SFXxMW007700@reva.xtremeunix.com> Message-ID: <46AB9500.1010502@mac.com> spike wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick >> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 7:28 AM >> To: 'ExI chat list' >> Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape >> >> >> Renewable >> Energy Projects Will Devour Huge Amounts of Land, Warns Researcher >> IAN SAMPLE, Science Correspondent - The Guardian (U.K.) >> >> >> Large-scale renewable energy projects will cause widespread >> environmental damage by industrialising vast swaths of countryside, a >> leading scientist claims today. ... >> > > Ja, we knew that. > We did? What kinds? Surely not wave energy projects, likely not geothermal, not anticipated thin film solar on many surfaces already part of more industrialized areas. So what is meant? Some types of solar farms, some bio-energy projects where the particular things being grown for energy were not already being grown and harvested though perhaps at a lesser scale? I always reach for my reply key (or the delete key) when I see "a leading scientist claims today". :-) > > >> The analysis showed that damming rivers to make use of hydroelectric >> power was among the most harmful to the landscape, producing around >> 0.1 watts of power per square metre. ... >> > > Of course, dams are not *primarily* for the purpose of generating power, but > rather for water control. For this analysis we must somehow take into > account the value of property not destroyed by flooding because of the dams. > > Is a raw measure of area of land changed per unit of energy produced particularly meaningful? > > >> Biofuel crops and wind energy fared better in the study, with both >> generating around 1.2w to a square metre... >> > > Furthermore, we have just begun to find the most efficient biofuels. That > is an area that will improve dramatically. > > > .... > >> Another calculation revealed that to meet US energy demands for 2005 >> with wind power would require constant winds blowing onto wind farms >> covering more than 780,000 square kilometres of land, the area of >> Texas and Louisiana combined... >> > > Of course no one is remotely suggesting any such thing so this is a bit of a canard. > >> The report breaks what Prof Ausubel calls the "taboo of talking about >> the strong negative aspects of renewables"... >> > > We know of the negatives, but there are many positives. Countries all have > their own wind and their own sunlight, even if some have more than others. > No need to fight over resources. > > > >> ... they're mistaking pleasant landscaping >> with what would be a massive industrial transformation of the >> landscape," he said. >> > > It's all in the way it is described. Rather let us transform massive > landscaping with pleasant industrial transformation. > > > >> "A fundamental credo of being green is that you cause minimal >> interference with the landscape... >> > > So goes the dogma. > Yeah. This notion of the good presumes that what just happens to be there without interference by humans or eventually other intelligences is the best possible. It also leaves "good" and its derivative "best" singularly undefined and ungrounded. > >> We should be farming less land, >> logging less forest and trawling less ocean - disturbing the >> landscape less and sparing land for nature. But all of these >> renewable sources of energy are incredibly invasive and aggressive >> with regard to nature. Renewables may be renewable, but they are not >> green," he added... >> > > Who says we "should" be doing any of these things? The question to be answered is how do we meet our energy needs with the least well-defined harm to our well-being including our environmental dependencies. - samantha From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Jul 28 19:09:12 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:09:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: <20070728173546.GE20274@leitl.org> References: <200707281428.l6SESGol007774@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> <20070728173546.GE20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: <200707281909.l6SJ9EuK029243@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> At 07:35 PM 7/28/2007 +0200, Eugen wrote: >On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 09:28:14AM -0500, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > Large-scale renewable energy projects will cause widespread > > environmental damage by industrialising vast swaths of countryside, a > > leading scientist claims today. The warning follows an analysis of No I didn't. Damien Broderick From amara at amara.com Sat Jul 28 19:32:03 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:32:03 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Brian May approaches his (non-honorary) Doctorate Message-ID: (sorry..was at a workshop in Bern, just returned to Rome, and don't worry, Damien) Michael M. Butler mmbutler at gmail.com >'His thesis, "Radial Velocities in the Zodiacal Dust Cloud," is the >last component of his PhD studies and May expected to complete his >work on Wednesday.' >I assume they mean "expected to complete his data collection". No, he formally submits his dissertation to his PhD committee. Then the usual procedure: they review it, he defends it (August 23), then he is awarded the degree, or not. >Didn't know he was into dust. Did you, Amara? welll......... http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-light-for-gran-telescopio.html#c1755819223639419721 Amara P.S. You can keep up with his thesis and other astronomy activities here: http://www.brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssb.html -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Jul 29 04:03:42 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:03:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Brian May approaches his (non-honorary) Doctorate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200707290403.l6T43mSP021218@lily.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Subject: [ExI] Brian May approaches his (non-honorary) Doctorate > > (sorry..was at a workshop in Bern, just returned to Rome... Q: Why are cell phones so expensive in Italy? A: They hafta pay Roman charges. ... > > No, he formally submits his dissertation to his PhD committee. Then the > usual procedure: they review it, he defends it (August 23), then he is > awarded the degree, or not... Amara Thought experiment: what if... you and I were not out on the fringes, but rather this planet was populated by people like us. Extropian thought would be mainstream stuff, tabloids at the grocery checkout counter headlining every appearance of an astronomer or physicist. Everything Hollywood would be something that only a few people had even heard about, an eclectic discipline followed intently by few. The status of rock stars and astronomers would be nearly exactly switched: rockers like Brian May would be greeted by throngs of autograph seekers *when he was awarded his PhD* but little notice would come of his music career. The few odd rock and roll fans would marvel that he had achieved so much popularity by earning the pinnacle of degrees in astronomy, a field of which they were aware, a field in which the lead acts made tons of money, had teenage girls always hanging on their every word, TV execs always wanting interviews. The occasional PBS special would be made about the rock and roll world, in which they might be mentioned, along with video of a rock concert in which fifty to seventy people, mostly men, listened intently to each act. spike From eugen at leitl.org Sun Jul 29 07:23:42 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:23:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] "Explosion at Scaled Composites test site kills 3" Message-ID: <20070729072342.GI20274@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from Amara Graps ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org From: Amara Graps Subject: Explosion at Scaled Composites test site kills 3 Uh oh. Someone we know? ------------------ http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3419744 Explosion Kills 3 at Mojave Airport, Rocks Community Known for Pioneering Rocket Firm By ALICIA CHANG The Associated Press MOJAVE, Calif. An explosion that killed three at a Mojave Desert airport during testing of a new space tourism vehicle has shaken a small community that prides itself as the hometown of the first private space launch. The blast Thursday at a remote test facility belonging to Scaled Composites LLC critically injured three other employees working on a propellant system for the vehicle. The company, headed by maverick aerospace designer Burt Rutan, made history in 2004 when its SpaceShipOne became the first private manned rocket to reach space. Since that milestone, Rutan has partnered with British billionaire Richard Branson to build a fleet of commercial vehicles dubbed SpaceShipTwo for Virgin Galactic. The accident occurred during a test of the flow of nitrous oxide through an injector in the course of testing components for a new rocket motor for the SpaceShipTwo. The chemical was at room temperature and under pressure, Rutan said. Stuart Witt, the airport's general manager who was in his office when the explosion happened, said the airport is home to several commercial space startups and is constantly buzzing with rocket and engine testing. "What we do is inherently risky," Witt said. "These are not the days we look forward to, but we deal with it." rest of the story here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3419744 ------------------ On the Net: Scaled Composites: http://www.scaled.com ------------------- And more news links: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/0117202&from=rss http://jonstraveladventures.blogspot.com/2007/07/scaled-composites-explosion-and-future.html http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/26/more-bad-space-news-explosion-at-scaled-composites-site/ http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2007/07/explosion_at_scaled_composites.php http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/spaceport.blast/index.html And ------------------- What a sad situation.. for all of us! http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/198908.html (If Doug is working there now, he wasn't killed. Let's hope he is not one of those injured too.) -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From sjatkins at mac.com Sun Jul 29 17:58:47 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:58:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: <200707281829.l6SIT8sH018566@lily.ziaspace.com> References: <200707281829.l6SIT8sH018566@lily.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <46ACD557.4080100@mac.com> spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of gts >> Subject: Re: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the >> landscape >> >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:33:51 -0400, spike wrote: >> >> >>>> The world's largest dam, ...submerging land that was previously home >>>> to more than 1 million people... >>>> >>> If we take that into account, we get to add all the energy saved from >>> those million people not living there anymore. >>> >> Do we? Seems to me that unless we killed them or prevented their births, >> those million displaced people consume roughly the same amount of energy >> as otherwise, albeit from different locations. >> >> -gts >> > > Actually that was kind of a gag, g. {8^D A lame one, for sure. > > But it depends on how you count it. Consider the illegal aliens pouring > across the border into the US from Mexico every day. On this side, they > devour more energy resources than they would if they lived to the south, yet > since greenhouse gas emissions are measured by oil imports and production > within each nation's borders, this illegal immigration comes out on the > books as a massive increase in the US consumption of oil and a decrease in > Mexican energy consumption. Spike, I never know when you are serious. The popularity of SUVs some years back was a massive increase. Millions of gardeners, day laborers, low wage folks in general just cannot remotely match a large fraction ofthe energy consumption of natives. So I see no way this statement can be true. Another gag? > Both changes are per capita, since the illegals > in the US do not show up on the census-takers roles. (They flee when any > government type comes around.) So do I. :-) > Similarly, Mexico might not take into > account that a portion of their population has vacated to the north, which > would cause their population estimates to be high, while their oil > consumption would actually drop. > > Have you been to Mexico? Much of the country has almost non-existent consumption (especially compared to US) due to poverty. > When the Kyoto agreement debates were going on, I never did hear anyone > mention that the US cannot sign such an agreement, since we have no > practical way of stopping the flood of illegal immigration. Or none that I > know of. Anyone have a suggestion?). > > Bizarre. Must be a gag. - samantha From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 29 21:48:04 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:48:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Aharonov-Bohm Effect References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com><4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no><7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070315175649.022ec7e8@satx.rr.com><003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070318140758.0236d6c8@satx.rr.com><002b01c76a51$5dbfbad0$0fba1f97@archimede><0aa301c7c695$8165d5f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><000301c7c70d$dca19df0$33921f97@archimede> <213b01c7d138$5344f3b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <000301c7d214$4331e230$a1961f97@archimede> Message-ID: <219901c7d22a$440c3aa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Serafino writes >> The more I understand about this, indeed the more >> outrageous it is. But I have one more question, below. > > The A-B effect is only one of the many quantum mysteries. > Someone begins to think that QM could be a sort of > 'operating system'. You're not a believer in MWI? > That is to say, not a theory about > physical 'behaviours' in space-time. But a 'syntax', a > compendium of abstract rules. Like any other rule, or > like any other operating system, it cannot be 'explained'. > One can only judge its efficiency, in terms of complexity, > of informations, of probabilities, of evolutions, etc. > (The speculation above might be relevant while studying > quantum gravity). > >> So in the A-B effect, is the vector potential outside >> the (shielded) solenoid different along the path that >> the electron takes? That is, if X and Y are two points >> of the path, is there or isn't there a difference in the >> strength of the vector potential? Surely the answer >> must be that there is *no* change! (Else we would >> have to say that the EM field itself was there, right?) > > The magnetic flux within a long solenoid of radius R > is given by the magnetic field strenght x pi x R^2. > Outside the solenoid the magnetic field is (fapp) > null. However the vector potential forms *cylindrical > equipotential surfaces* outside (and also inside) Ah, that's great. That can be nicely visualized. > the solenoid, with a sense of circulation which is > opposite to that of the electron current in the solenoid. > According to Maxwell the vector potential was a > measurable quantity related to momentum ('electromagnetic > momentum at a point'). It seems that the importance > of the vector potential, in the quamtum domain, > has been established by Dirac (in the '30s) and then > by Aharonov and Bohm (in the '50s). Okay. > Now, if you have a two-slit interferometer and many > electrons entering the interferometer, you get (for > each electron) two 'amplitudes', one for each slit. > You can compose the two 'amplitudes' at a point on > a screen (and you get an interference pattern). If, > between the two 'amplitudes' (or the two possible paths > of the electron), you insert a vector potential field, > you'll find a different interference pattern. The effect > might be thought as a force-free interaction with a vector > potential field (which is 'local' ghost) or as a force-free > interaction with a 'non-local' (and unknown) magnetic field. > > Note however that the force-free interaction with a > 'local' ghost, like a vector potential field, or a > 'non-local' one, like an unknown magnetic field, > is *not* sufficient to produce the A-B effect. > You also need that the allowed paths of the electrons > (in the two-slit example) *circumscribe* the region > in which the solenoid, or the shielded magnetic field, > is located. Oh, very good. This path dependence is familiar from curved space phenomena. That does explain it. Now, may I visualize one of the two paths (of one particle) emanating from one slit and, as it nears the solenoid, penetrating one after the other of the cylindrical surfaces and then un-penetrating them in turn as the electron goes further away? Or is that the wrong idea? > The A-B effect is then related to the geometry > (or, better, the topology) of the space accessible > to the particles. > > Given this topological factor, it could be interesting > to study a gravitational extension of the A-B effect. > But you need at least two paths which *circumscribe* > the region in which the gravitational potential resides. > (I think it has been done, in different contexts, > maybe also within neutron interferometry). In principle it sounds simple: just lower a gravitating field inside the two paths of an interstellar split beam experiment. (Wheeler loved to describe such a large "apparatus" wherein the two possibilities interfere after traveling many light years.) So I would think that this latter experiment would not involve EM, but rather gravitation, and might show just the same thing. > [The impression is that this post is rather chaotic, > or worse. Bah.] Nothing could be further from the truth! Your explanation above is the clearest I can imagine. Many thanks. Lee From emlynoregan at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 01:10:07 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:40:07 +0930 Subject: [ExI] Full Colour 3D Printing - the next big thing? Message-ID: <710b78fc0707291810l6d4acaf5r9d625acc100d3f1e@mail.gmail.com> If I were a betting man (which I am not, no money you understand), then I'd say this is indicative of a consumer level 3d printer industry that'll arrive in around 5 years, and cause a bit of a ruckus. I'd be worrying if I had a business manufacturing/distributing little plastic knicknacks (toys? collectibles? how soon until electronics can be included?): Contex Z450 3D Printer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyZtBYG0QOg Or check out their site: http://www.ideal.com/products/detail.asp?id=674&dpt=1 Color 3D Printing, Every Day Now you can print 3D color models so quickly and affordably, you'll do it every day. Introducing the IDEAL/Contex ZPrinter 450. The IDEAL/Contex ZPrinter 450 makes color 3D printing accessible to everyone. The lowest priced color 3D printer available, the IDEAL/Contex ZPrinter 450 outputs brillant color models with timesaving automation and an even easier printing process. It is the ideal introduction to color 3D printing for a wide variety of applications from product design, production prototypes, and architectural and gis concepts to education, healthcare, and the arts. Build full-color 3D models when you want, with the remarkable IDEAL/Contex ZPrinter 450. More Models Experience the world's faster print speed (5X faster than all other systems) Output models in hours, not days Build multiple models at the same time by stacking and nesting parts Support an entire engineering department or classroom with ease More Communication 3D models and product prototypes are about communication, and nothing communicates better than color. Color dramatically communicates engineering product designs, vividly renders architectural designs, and even brings animated characters into the real world. Produce realistic color models without painting Better evaluate the look, feel, and style of product designs Add highlights to models with annotations like text, arrows, and texture maps More Free Time The IDEAL/Contex Zprinter 450 performs most operations automatically so you don't have to, and it simplifies the rest. 40% less operator touch time for setup and model removal Automated setup and self monitoring Automated powder loading and recycling New "snap-in" binder cartridges Office Friendly The IDEAL/Contex Zprinter 450 sets the stardard for office compatiblity with breakthrough innovations that make it ideal for everyday use in a standard office environment. It eliminates nearly all of the hazards, waste, noise, and disposal issues that are associated with typical rapid prototyping systems, and does so in a remarkably compact footprint. Clean Most advanced powder-management system available on an inkjet 3D printer Closed-loop powder loading, removal, and recycling Continous negative pressure for containing airborne particles within the envelope of the machine Zero liquid waste to handle Quiet Noise-suppression technologies for quiet, intrusion-free operation Safe Similar to a common 2D inkjet printer Eco-friendly, non-hazardous build material No physical support structures attached to models, like other 3D printers. And no need to remove those supports with dangerous cutting tools or toxic chemicals Convenient Greater control from ZPrint Software and printer Automatic powder loading Snap-in binder cartridges Easily changeable print heads From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 31 16:26:51 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:26:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Australian Aborigine Communities Awash in Abuse Message-ID: <21f701c7d38f$9c61aee0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> The article at http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3380674&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 provides a description of a common historical event. An "inferior" or weaker culture disintegrates when placed in contact with a stronger one. This is also exactly why many overseas Muslims fear America so: America is the embodiement of a huge panoply of disrupting and degenerate cultural influences. That's why the U.S. is explicitly "The Great Satan", the tempter, and not described as some ordinary enemy. ("Stronger" cultures may dominate "weaker" ones in the sense that lack of cleanliness dominates cleanliness: if you mix dirty water and clean water, you get dirty water.) "In response to the report, the government announced it will ban alcohol, confiscate pornography and withhold welfare payments from families who fail to make sure their children attend school." So what's new in their culture? Drugs? No, although alcohol is probably much more potent and certainly is unfamiliar (and so would take many generations to accomodate to). Pornography? Probably not. School? Certainly. Traditionally it was the families that decided what children did, not governments. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Jul 31 16:22:35 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:22:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken Message-ID: <21f601c7d38f$9c287670$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes >> But politics? I hope that you really don't think that a political hypothesis, >> e.g., the French Revolution was justified (or did more good than harm), >> or the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies was justified (or was a >> logical move), can ever be falsified. > > Sigh. In the realm of stipulated probabilistic truth the evidence that > this was a mistake is vastly predominate. Do you agree or not? No, because I can't really assess very well how the alternative would have turned out. You don't believe for a moment that no problems would exist without the incursion, but you have faith that it would be a lot better than what we have. Yes, I do agree that it's in all likelihood an unnecessary *mess*, that it has turned out badly compared to what could have been. In my opinion, the war was conducted poorly by the administration, although it's also true that the U.S. is vastly more divided than was apparent in 2002. Your real enemy, I'm afraid, is not Al Queda nor terrorism nor Islamic fundamentalism. Your real enemy---at least in your own mind---is George Bush and all he stands for. I really am not the slightest bit surprised since this is inevitably what happens to all "superpowers" in history: their internal divisions dominate all other concerns. The real struggle is within the so-called "superpower" itself. (Granting that you probably do not endorse all his views, Michael Moore spoke for many when he complained that Al Quada had hit a blue state instead of a red one.) >> Well, it was innocent. Yes, it was extreme, and yes, it wasn't a very >> good parallel, but what I was attempting in all sincereity to >> do was to rebut a *principle* (i.e., if I recall correctly, that >> one cannot merely allude to the financial burden of a course >> of action independent of an investigation of the costs of >> alternatives---as the subject line of this post attests). > > Then are you unaware of the extremely misleading nature of your > comparison if merely rebutting the stated principle? I wish that I could say that *I* always read with great literality all that others write, but this may be a case where what I literally wrote (and meant) did indeed give wrong impressions. > It is at best poor communication. If it fails to accomplish its purpose, then I agree. But you don't get off so free either, in my opinion. A careful enough reading of what the *point* was---and a strong effort to keep it in mind---would have revealed it to you; alas, making any kind of analogy was like a red flag in front of a bull. I should be more careful not to provoke knee-jerk responses. Lee From neomorphy at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 08:41:09 2007 From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:41:09 +1000 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070723081011.02524998@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070720175258.022ea458@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0707230023p29b3753ew678ab962d34522c8@mail.gmail.com> <46A46225.30208@mac.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070723081011.02524998@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 7/23/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 01:09 AM 7/23/2007 -0700, Samantha wrote: > > >I have seen no good reason to doubt global warming is real. I have seen > >no good reason to doubt that human activities are strongly contributing > >to global warming. I don't see why this is complicated. > > Do you mean you didn't read the following (e.g.), which I posted in > launching this thread, or you're claiming it's all spin and bullshit? > If the latter, what is your substantiation? Well, I read Martin Durkin's response that you quoted, and I saw the agitprop-doco, and all accompanying interviews, and I have reached some pretty strong conclusions that Durkin is full of bullshit. Apart from lacking a scientific background, he deliberately and misleadingly uses selected data, is constantly wrong about basic facts like: " According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this. This is clearly awkward. The least one should expect of global warming is that the Earth should be getting warmer" compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png (yes, there is a spike in 1998. Have temperatures been static since?) In the subsequent interviews, Durkin continually prevericated, and where it was pointed out that his selection of data excluded things that ran contrary to his claims (like solar activity over the past 30 years), he dismissed these as "moot points". So "Why are the global warmers so zealous?" Why "the ferocity of the attack,..."(revealing) the intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp. Why were Jones and co expending such energy and resources attacking one documentary?" why has "the theory of global warming has not been subjected to this barrage of critical scrutiny by the media" Ask yourself this: if the National Broadcaster had presented a doco that said that Natural Selection was a "lie" being told to you by athiest scientists like Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough, and it had _not_ been presented with critical views, would that have been scientifically responsible? Such cotton-padding of critical discussion would not have been necessary if the doco had been putting forth the views of someone like Carl Wunsch, who is a proper sceptic. If there were a doco saying "anyone who says that the evidence is incontrovertible that recent temperature changes are entirely due to anthropogenic emissions is wrong; anyone who says that they know exactly what will happen to the climate in 50 years is also wrong", that wouldn't have been a problem. But Durkin didn't say anything like that. The truth is, climate is a proper complex system. There are more feedbacks than you can poke a stick at. Dramatic global temperature shifts, enough to destroy the global economy, can happen in under a decade, and have happened before (eg: end of younger Dryas). Greenhouse gases have caused mass extinctions, and a climate you-bloody-well-do-not-want (eg Methane Clathrate releases). Can we be sure what's going to happen? Not exactly. Can we be sure of the causes? Not in the senses that the scientifically uneducated use. That doesn't mean that we can throw prudence to the wind, either. Are Durkin's claims, implying surety that "Global Warming is a Lie", justified ? Fuck, no. -- Olie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neomorphy at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 08:57:22 2007 From: neomorphy at gmail.com (Olie Lamb) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:57:22 +1000 Subject: [ExI] "Up against the warming zealots"...hmmm In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <61c8738e0707210843x544df471ja6482c1fae2c6f6e@mail.gmail.com> <710b78fc0707230512s1672af0dg36eede1411c321c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 7/23/07, Emlyn wrote: > > > I'm absolutely not saying this is universal - a lot of people care > about the environment these days, too many to talk in simple > generalisations. But surely, others here have noticed the same thing? > Don't you notice that the kinds of people heavily concerned about > environmental issues are the same people that react particularly > negatively to transhumanist ideas? > True, but the groups I see as reacting most strongly against environmental causes - Creationists - seem to be far more anti-transhumanist than knee-jerk environmentalists. Although they both oppose, say, human germline engineering, only one group opposes, say, embryonic stem-cell therapy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 29 05:17:52 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:17:52 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Explosion at Scaled Composites test site kills 3 Message-ID: Uh oh. Someone we know? ------------------ http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3419744 Explosion Kills 3 at Mojave Airport, Rocks Community Known for Pioneering Rocket Firm By ALICIA CHANG The Associated Press MOJAVE, Calif. An explosion that killed three at a Mojave Desert airport during testing of a new space tourism vehicle has shaken a small community that prides itself as the hometown of the first private space launch. The blast Thursday at a remote test facility belonging to Scaled Composites LLC critically injured three other employees working on a propellant system for the vehicle. The company, headed by maverick aerospace designer Burt Rutan, made history in 2004 when its SpaceShipOne became the first private manned rocket to reach space. Since that milestone, Rutan has partnered with British billionaire Richard Branson to build a fleet of commercial vehicles dubbed SpaceShipTwo for Virgin Galactic. The accident occurred during a test of the flow of nitrous oxide through an injector in the course of testing components for a new rocket motor for the SpaceShipTwo. The chemical was at room temperature and under pressure, Rutan said. Stuart Witt, the airport's general manager who was in his office when the explosion happened, said the airport is home to several commercial space startups and is constantly buzzing with rocket and engine testing. "What we do is inherently risky," Witt said. "These are not the days we look forward to, but we deal with it." rest of the story here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3419744 ------------------ On the Net: Scaled Composites: http://www.scaled.com -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From brent.allsop at comcast.net Sun Jul 29 19:11:26 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:11:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A Mormon Transhumanist Atheist walked into a sushi bar. Message-ID: <46ACE65E.9020904@comcast.net> In his blog at http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2007/07/transvision-2007-good-bad-and-ugly.html George Dvorsky commented: "Now don't get me wrong -- I love the diversity and the representation. But at what point does it become less about transhumanism, progress and responsible foresight and more about spreading the word of Mormon or some other leeching meme?" Others at TV07, and also in the Mormon community, and elsewhere are wondering if this is some kind of joke that might be published in some humorous onion article or something. So I figured I should try to clarify my position and belief on this. George Continued: "Or am I somehow wrong about all of this -- that there's a bigger picture to consider?" I do believe there is a much bigger picture here. I was raised in the tight nit Mormon community. All my family and most of my friends are very strong theistic Mormon. Then I became an atheist. Despite what all other atheists seemed to be saying to me, I didn't want to leave this wonderful community and my family. I still consider myself a "cultural" Mormon, and think that many Mormons are funer to be with than many atheists. They will certainly do more to help you than most atheists, even if Mormons do have the quid pro quo that you might listen to their missionaries and come to church with them when they help you. I've been diligently attempting to pull Mormons to see the Transhumanist POV for well over 15 years with little success other than possibly "planting seeds". Then 3 years ago we relocated to SLC. I was surprised to find a group of SLC Transhumanists large and committed enough to form a local WTA chapter and was excited when many of them wanted to do precisely this. There were a few other local "atheists" Transhumanists like me, and I wanted to call the group the Utah Transhumanist Association" or something, knowing that some of the other atheists wouldn't be involved with the word "Mormon" in the name. And these atheist Transhumanists had no interest in doing any organization work and didn't even participate in the discussion of what to call the group. So, obviously, the many willing to do the work, and participate, out voted us in the decision to call us Mormon Tranhumanists. George, what would have been your advice to me, after having been outvoted? Be like the other local atheist Tranhumanists, and use this as an excuse not to do the work required to help the group and move the Tranhumanist Mem forward? What are we anyway? I don't like to consider myself a Republican, I don't like to consider myself a democrat. If I am only a cultural Mormon, must I never belong to any group of Mormons? Primitive people, with their lack of ability to communicate, didn't have much choice other than just to join some party line, and just ignore any other difference they may have had. But today this is very different. I want to be a member of, and take all the good from, all groups -- while helping them see the problems I believe their beliefs have. My goal with the canonizer.com is to do precisely this. Precisely document just what it is everyone believes, in a way that is easily contrastable to everyone else. Rather than saying someone is an atheist, Transhumanist, democrat, or whatever, they will soon be able to specify just what it is they believe on any and all issues. No longer will they need to be in some party that is merely close to what they believe. The day of the hierarchy party line is gone. Now is the time for the networked with everyone, educated, and able to communicate individual. Most proud Transhumanists demand: My way or the highway! There is no group that fits, precisely, what they believe. So they refuse to affiliate with any of them. Splitting up into ever smaller groups until everyone is individuals that can do nothing. They work on destroying any other group that doesn't believe as they do for fear that doing anything else may "dilute" what they want and "spread the word" of anything they don't want. At least one speaker at TV07 said something like it is crazy to keep on doing the same thing, and expecting different results. Now that the MTA is by far the fastest growing, best organized, and most active Transhumanist group anywhere (after one year ~15 paying members [10% of the WTA paying members], ~40 total members, and 40,000+ page hits on their site last month), I realized I have been crazy to do this the same old unsuccessful way for over 15 years now. I have fully converted and repented of the desire to call us "Utah Transhumanists" and believe that the name Mormon Transhumanist is a critical reason for our success, along with all the great dedication of so many missionary minded Mormons. Those two words together just demand that people pay attention and it ends up sucking them in, even if they disagree at first, in very powerful ways! Most atheists don't seem to want to do any work to organize or help there brother. But Mormons, on the other hand, will humbly do anything required. And as far as that goes, unlike so many other Transhumanists, I am definitely a Mormon, and love to be affiliated with them! But just because a few other Transhumanists seem to feel different, doesn't mean I no longer want to consider myself a Transhumanist. Alone we are nothing. Together we can do it all. Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Sun Jul 29 19:11:25 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:11:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Aharonov-Bohm Effect References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com><4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no><7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070315175649.022ec7e8@satx.rr.com><003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070318140758.0236d6c8@satx.rr.com><002b01c76a51$5dbfbad0$0fba1f97@archimede><0aa301c7c695$8165d5f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><000301c7c70d$dca19df0$33921f97@archimede> <213b01c7d138$5344f3b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <000301c7d214$4331e230$a1961f97@archimede> Lee: > The more I understand about this, indeed the more > outrageous it is. But I have one more question, below. The A-B effect is only one of the many quantum mysteries. Someone begins to think that QM could be a sort of 'operating system'. That is to say, not a theory about physical 'behaviours' in space-time. But a 'syntax', a compendium of abstract rules. Like any other rule, or like any other operating system, it cannot be 'explained'. One can only judge its efficiency, in terms of complexity, of informations, of probabilities, of evolutions, etc. (The speculation above might be relevant while studying quantum gravity). > So in the A-B effect, is the vector potential outside > the (shielded) solenoid different along the path that > the electron takes? That is, if X and Y are two points > of the path, is there or isn't there a difference in the > strength of the vector potential? Surely the answer > must be that there is *no* change! (Else we would > have to say that the EM field itself was there, right?) The magnetic flux within a long solenoid of radius R is given by the magnetic field strenght x pi x R^2. Outside the solenoid the magnetic field is (fapp) null. However the vector potential forms *cylindrical equipotential surfaces* outside (and also inside) the solenoid, with a sense of circulation which is opposite to that of the electron current in the solenoid. According to Maxwell the vector potential was a measurable quantity related to momentum ('electromagnetic momentum at a point'). It seems that the importance of the vector potential, in the quamtum domain, has been established by Dirac (in the '30s) and then by Aharonov and Bohm (in the '50s). Now, if you have a two-slit interferometer and many electrons entering the interferometer, you get (for each electron) two 'amplitudes', one for each slit. You can compose the two 'amplitudes' at a point on a screen (and you get an interference pattern). If, between the two 'amplitudes' (or the two possible paths of the electron), you insert a vector potential field, you'll find a different interference pattern. The effect might be thought as a force-free interaction with a vector potential field (which is 'local' ghost) or as a force-free interaction with a 'non-local' (and unknown) magnetic field. Note however that the force-free interaction with a 'local' ghost, like a vector potential field, or a 'non-local' one, like an unknown magnetic field, is *not* sufficient to produce the A-B effect. You also need that the allowed paths of the electrons (in the two-slit example) *circumscribe* the region in which the solenoid, or the shielded magnetic field, is located. The A-B effect is then related to the geometry (or, better, the topology) of the space accessible to the particles. Given this topological factor, it could be interesting to study a gravitational extension of the A-B effect. But you need at least two paths which *circumscribe* the region in which the gravitational potential resides. (I think it has been done, in different contexts, maybe also within neutron interferometry). [The impression is that this post is rather chaotic, or worse. Bah.] From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 29 05:24:15 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:24:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Explosion at Scaled Composites test site kills 3 (more news links) Message-ID: And more news links: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/0117202&from=rss http://jonstraveladventures.blogspot.com/2007/07/scaled-composites-explosion-and-future.html http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/26/more-bad-space-news-explosion-at-scaled-composites-site/ http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2007/07/explosion_at_scaled_composites.php http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/spaceport.blast/index.html -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From jrd1415 at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 04:04:56 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:04:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] massive "green" industrial transformation of the landscape In-Reply-To: <20070728173546.GE20274@leitl.org> References: <200707281428.l6SESGol007774@ms-smtp-06.texas.rr.com> <20070728173546.GE20274@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 7/28/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: Gene, Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean that Jesse Ausebel, isn't "a leading scientist" and top drawer. I've known of his work for years, and have cited him several times in postings to the list. In my opinion he is definitely, and exceptionally, top drawer. But I'll leave you to make your own assessment. To that end let me recommend that you glide on over to the Rockefeller University site for the Program for the Human Environment: http://phe.rockefeller.edu/biblio.php If you go to "Publications" you will find at the top of the list the paper -- full text -- referred to in the Guardian article with which Damien began this thread. Horse's mouth. Renewable and nuclear heresies http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/HeresiesFinal.pdf The two papers of his that I have read, and which left me with a durable and thoroughly favorable opinion were: Elektron: Electrical Systems in Retrospect and Prospect http://phe.rockefeller.edu/Daedalus/Elektron/ and The Evolution of Transport http://phe.rockefeller.edu/TIP_transport/transport.pdf And don't we all agree that nuclear power is surpassingly green, and that the political opposition to same over the past ~3 decades is decidedly non-rational? One doesn't therefor have to be a shill for the nuclear industry to hold and espouse such a position. In fact, considering the anti-nuke pop culture, doesn't professor Ausebel, as Director of the Program for the Human Environment, at the liberal Rockefeller University, New York, NY, qualify as a scholar with intellectual integrity and even a bit of courage? Despite the harshness of your earlier "critique", I have every confidence you will give the good professor a fair and judicious assessment when you've had an opportunity to look at his actual body of work. Life is good here, as I hope it is with all of you. From amara at amara.com Sun Jul 29 05:30:54 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:30:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Explosion at Scaled Composites test site kills 3 (more news links+) Message-ID: What a sad situation.. for all of us! http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/198908.html (If Doug is working there now, he wasn't killed. Let's hope he is not one of those injured too.) -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, Italia From benboc at lineone.net Sun Jul 29 09:08:37 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:08:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanists and Puerto Rico In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46AC5915.5050804@lineone.net> "Andres Colon" asked: > If you are or happen to know a transhumanist from Puerto Rico (or > anywhere in the caribbean), please contact me at Andres at purenova.com. > > > Thanks! > > Andres, Why, what's he done? ben z From scerir at libero.it Mon Jul 30 05:58:56 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:58:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Aharonov-Bohm Effect References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com><4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no><7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070315175649.022ec7e8@satx.rr.com><003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede><7.0.1.0.2.20070318140758.0236d6c8@satx.rr.com><002b01c76a51$5dbfbad0$0fba1f97@archimede><0aa301c7c695$8165d5f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><000301c7c70d$dca19df0$33921f97@archimede> <213b01c7d138$5344f3b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <000301c7d214$4331e230$a1961f97@archimede> <219901c7d22a$440c3aa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <003401c7d26e$b7e5ba70$b7b91f97@archimede> [I did not receive my own post. But I received Lee's response] Lee: > You're not a believer in MWI? I think that one real world is enough :-) > Now, may I visualize one of the two paths (of one > particle) emanating from one slit and, as it nears the > solenoid, penetrating one after the other of the > cylindrical surfaces and then un-penetrating them > in turn as the electron goes further away? Or is > that the wrong idea? Something like that yes. And something like that also for the other path (amplitude) coming from the other slit. Since the vector potential field is rotating (say) anticlockwise, its radial components affect differently the upper and the lower paths (amplitudes) of the same electron. > In principle it sounds simple: just lower a gravitating > field inside the two paths of an interstellar split beam > experiment. (Wheeler loved to describe such a large > "apparatus" wherein the two possibilities interfere > after traveling many light years.) So I would think > that this latter experiment would not involve EM, > but rather gravitation, and might show just the same > thing. Yes, Wheeler and his 'dragon'. Within neutron interferometry it is possible to show anomalies in the interference pattern, due to the different distance of the paths (amplitudes) from the source of gravitation (Earth). At least that is what I remember. But I may be wrong. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 29 05:44:01 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:44:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46A99169.2060603@mac.com> <20c201c7d020$12953e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46AA271D.7070300@mac.com> <20f701c7d0a3$2d4e6eb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46ABC1E1.2080607@mac.com> Message-ID: <217f01c7d1a3$ca76b480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes >> But politics? I hope that you really don't think that a political hypothesis, >> e.g., the French Revolution was justified (or did more good than harm), >> or the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies was justified (or was a >> logical move), can ever be falsified. > > Sigh. In the realm of stipulated probabilistic truth the evidence that > this was a mistake is vastly predominate. Do you agree or not? No, because I can't really assess very well how the alternative would have turned out. You don't believe for a moment that no problems would exist without the incursion, but you have faith that it would be a lot better than what we have. Yes, I do agree that it's in all likelihood an unnecessary *mess*, that it has turned out badly compared to what could have been. In my opinion, the war was conducted poorly by the administration, although it's also true that the U.S. is vastly more divided than was apparent in 2002. Your real enemy, I'm afraid, is not Al Queda nor terrorism nor Islamic fundamentalism. Your real enemy---at least in your own mind---is George Bush and all he stands for. I really am not the slightest bit surprised since this is inevitably what happens to all "superpowers" in history: their internal divisions dominate all other concerns. The real struggle is within the so-called "superpower" itself. (Granting that you probably do not endorse all his views, Michael Moore spoke for many when he complained that Al Quada had hit a blue state instead of a red one.) >> Well, it was innocent. Yes, it was extreme, and yes, it wasn't a very >> good parallel, but what I was attempting in all sincereity to >> do was to rebut a *principle* (i.e., if I recall correctly, that >> one cannot merely allude to the financial burden of a course >> of action independent of an investigation of the costs of >> alternatives---as the subject line of this post attests). > > Then are you unaware of the extremely misleading nature of your > comparison if merely rebutting the stated principle? I wish that I could say that *I* always read with great literality all that others write, but this may be a case where what I literally wrote (and meant) did indeed give wrong impressions. > It is at best poor communication. If it fails to accomplish its purpose, then I agree. But you don't get off so free either, in my opinion. A careful enough reading of what the *point* was---and a strong effort to keep it in mind---would have revealed it to you; alas, making any kind of analogy was like a red flag in front of a bull. I should be more careful not to provoke knee-jerk responses. And no, I don't have endless time to reply to every point you make. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Jul 29 05:52:24 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:52:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Australian Aborigine Communities Awash in Abuse Message-ID: <218201c7d1a5$318690e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> The article at http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3380674&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 provides a description of a common historical event. An "inferior" or weaker culture disintegrates when placed in contact with a stronger one. This is also exactly why many overseas Muslims fear America so: America is the embodiement of a huge panoply of disrupting and degenerate cultural influences. That's why the U.S. is explicitly "The Great Satan", the tempter, and not described as some ordinary enemy. "In response to the report, the government announced it will ban alcohol, confiscate pornography and withhold welfare payments from families who fail to make sure their children attend school." So what's new in their culture? Drugs? No, although alcohol is probably much more potent and certainly is unfamiliar (and so would take many generations to accomodate to). Pornography? Probably not. School? Certainly. Traditionally it was the *families* that decided, not governments. Lee From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 16:23:06 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:23:06 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Email software - what do you like? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070730094507.036f7fe0@natasha.cc> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070730094507.036f7fe0@natasha.cc> Message-ID: <470a3c520707300923t4477e510x55b9bc2d76886d32@mail.gmail.com> Jost use gmail, you don't really need anything else. G. On 7/30/07, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > This is off the heavy topics of late, but if anyone has an email software > that you really love, or even just simply like a lot because it is so good, > please let me know. I have been using Eudora for years and they have > discontinued and haven't a clue what to use now. > > Feel free to email me privately. > > Many thanks, > Natasha > > Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the > Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, > University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy > Institute > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the > circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > wta-talk mailing list > wta-talk at transhumanism.org > http://www.transhumanism.org/mailman/listinfo/wta-talk > > From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jul 30 14:47:02 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:47:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Email software - what do you like? Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070730094507.036f7fe0@natasha.cc> This is off the heavy topics of late, but if anyone has an email software that you really love, or even just simply like a lot because it is so good, please let me know. I have been using Eudora for years and they have discontinued and haven't a clue what to use now. Feel free to email me privately. Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Situated in the Faculty of Technology, School of Computing, Communications and Electronics, University of Plymouth, England Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute 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 sjatkins at mac.com Sat Jul 28 22:23:29 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:23:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Costs of the Roads Not Taken In-Reply-To: <20f701c7d0a3$2d4e6eb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <24f36f410707231400v2392ffeep6b3377d86b5f822@mail.gmail.com> <20070724064330.GJ20274@leitl.org> <203a01c7ce89$e9ca9e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46A99169.2060603@mac.com> <20c201c7d020$12953e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46AA271D.7070300@mac.com> <20f701c7d0a3$2d4e6eb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <46ABC1E1.2080607@mac.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > Samantha writes > > >>> I can hardly think of anything that at this point seems more a waste >>> of my time than debating the merits of the Iraq war, and so I won't. >>> Here I'm only replying because of nature of your over-the-top >>> response, which is of psychological interest. >>> >> Typical. Your post is not of "psychological interest"? Psychologizing >> posters is truly "over the top" and a total waste of time. >> > > I cannot apologize for being interested in the psychology of why > we adopt and cling to the various positions that we do, sorry. > Perhaps you are uncharitably interpreting what I meant by > "of psychological interest". Perhaps not. > > >> I spoke to your seeming refusal to reach any conclusions and rather, imho, >> dishonest insinuation about the Iraq War that fly in the face of what we >> have seen. >> > > Please. :-) Dishonest? Must we resort to such accusations? > OK. Perhaps you honestly intended you insinuations. But that would be a confusing possibility to entertain as you claimed earlier you weren't trying to insinuate what it looked obvious to me you were insinuating. So if you are insinuationg anything then it is honestly done and if you are not then honesty is not a relevant judgment? But if you are not intending to insinuate anything then your words do not fit well with that intention because they do insinuate certain views. > Firstly, please calmly consider that not even in mathematics (!) is > every position falsifiable. That may come as a surprise, and it's > Totally irrelevant imho to this context. > But politics? I hope that you really don't think that a political hypothesis, > e.g., the French Revolution was justified (or did more good than harm), > or the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies was justified (or was a > logical move), can ever be falsified. Sigh. In the realm of stipulated probabilistic truth the evidence that this was a mistake is vastly predominate. Do you agree or not? That we do not know absolute truth is not in the least relevant. > Were the situation in Iraq to begin to develop favorably to the army's > purpose, or even if the entire effort ended quite successfully (which > I concede is a long shot), there is no way that you would admit that > it was probably a good idea---whatever happened, you'd have other > explanations. It's just the way it is. So, same for me. > > Sorry you have no way of knowing any such thing so don't attempt to claim this is so. Do you get some payback by the word? Most of this is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. You are no more convincing and certainly communicating no better just because you include more digressions. >>> I was *merely* attacking the implied notion that one can >>> evaluate costs simply, without taking into consideration the >>> "roads not taken". >>> >> No you were not merely doing that. You were drawing a parallel >> by your choice of examples. That parallel does not have merit. >> I do not believe it was innocent. >> > > Well, it was innocent. Yes, it was extreme, and yes, it wasn't a very > good parallel, but what I was attempting in all sincereity to > do was to rebut a *principle* (i.e., if I recall correctly, that > one cannot merely allude to the financial burden of a course > of action independent of an investigation of the costs of > alternatives---as the subject line of this post attests). > > Then are you unaware of the extremely misleading nature of your comparison if merely rebutting the stated principle? It is at best poor communication. >>> But I do not >>> mean at all to debate the likelihood of that---I simply am >>> affirming that these are---of course---what went or is going >>> though the minds of those who favored the invasion. >>> >> And what of these purported reasons? Do they hold water and explain >> anything or not? >> > > Well, that is exactly what I want to avoid getting into. Sorry, I just > don't have time for it, and besides, its pretty fruitless (although sometimes > quite entertaining). > Then why open such things up with your choice of words? This is why, since I believe you are quite intelligent, I have trouble believing those choices are altogether innocent. It is more likely imho that you wished to slide a few ideas and notions into the thought space and then disown them or plead lack of time if you get called on them. If so I find that dishonest. If not then I may have to lower my estimate of your effective intelligence when it comes to communicating by email. > Consult the dictionary if you must. I mean it in the sense of adopting > a position so strongly and with so little conception of possible error > that one becomes actually shrill and not just a little narrow-minded. > I have given you insufficient grounds for such a judgment. > > >> I have watched you float ideas over and over again that don't hold water >> on much of any examination. Why do you do that? >> > > Translation: you really don't agree with me on a large variety of > issues. Don't translate. You communicate in a slippery manner I do not trust. You float notions directly or more often by insinuation and analogy and then plead innocence of intend or no time to explore them. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Tue Jul 31 06:00:00 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:00:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] on inflation in long term thinking Message-ID: <38613567-68BF-4398-9733-F458B0384701@mac.com> I was recently rereading Eliezer's Cognitive Biases paper. It ends with a paragraph that I find troublesome. " No more than Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi could multiply the suffering of one human by a hundred million can I truly understand the value of clear thinking about global risks. Scope neglect is the hazard of being a biological human, running on an analog brain; the brain cannot multiply by six billion. And the stakes of existential risk extend beyond even the six billion humans alive today, to all the stars in all the galaxies that humanity and humanity's descendants may some day touch. All that vast potential hinges on our survival here, now, in the days when the realm of humankind is a single planet orbiting a single star. I can't feel our future. All I can do is try to defend it." What bothers me is the implicit notion rational decision making requires maximal extension of hypotheticals. None of us have any real idea whether humanity or its descendants have a future beyond this planet, solar system or local galactic neighborhood. That we might perhaps become or create near-gods that touch the entire galaxy eventually can surely be said of every reasonably sapient species in the universe. But is it really rational to judge risk to humanity as equating to a major risk to the entire universe? I don't see how this is justified. Do we judge a human being not just on his own character and likely potential but on the potential of all those myriad of beings he might possibly be an ancestor to plus all those artificial beings that he might create or have some small part in creating and all their works as well? Surely this throws reasonable context, likelihood analysis and any basis for rational decision making into disarray. So what is the proper means of cleaning this up? How is it properly delimited to something actually useful? Am I missing something? - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: