From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Mar 1 00:27:28 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:27:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn Message-ID: <16670941.105721172708846550.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Anyone read this yet? PJ http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-lloyd18feb18,0,5286691.htmlstory?coll=cl-bookreview BOOK REVIEW 'The Human Touch' by Michael Frayn Do we in some sense create the universe? By Seth Lloyd February 18, 2007 The Human Touch: Our Part in the Creation of a Universe Michael Frayn Metropolitan Books: 506 pp., $32.50 Michael Frayn is known as a playwright ("Noises Off," "Copenhagen") and novelist ("Headlong," "Spies"). But this prolific British author is also a philosopher, having studied philosophy at Cambridge in the 1950s. "The Human Touch" is a profound, personal account of his work on a range of topics, beginning (and ending) with the philosophy of consciousness and passing through the nature of physical law, the problem of free will, the relationship of language and thought to reality, and the origin of the universe. These difficult ideas are effortlessly dealt with, leaving the reader with a sense of mild intoxication. Frayn's exultant prose entices and ultimately overwhelms you. Reading his arguments, I felt as though I were floating down a warm river, caught up in its playful, whirling eddies. "The Human Touch" is beautifully written. Is this a problem in a book of philosophy? Philosophical arguments are often hard to follow. There's little danger that (for example) Hegel will convince you of his thesis by his sheer eloquence. On the contrary, one must have strong inducement (a cattle prod, maybe?) to extract it from the dense tangle of his writing. Within Frayn's joyous prose, by contrast, one can lose one's grip on the underlying reasoning about, say, the nature of cause and effect. As I was borne along, delighting in his tropes, some part of my brain would feebly assert itself. ("Wait! There's a simple refutation of this point. I remember it from school ? what was it?") Then I'd sink back into the flow. To be fair, Frayn claims that "The Human Touch" is not a work of philosophy, but given the topics he covers, this seems disingenuous. As an author, he has always gravitated to deep questions of existence; he is too modest in disavowing philosophical intent. "The Human Touch" opens by raising a fundamental anomaly: The universe apparently has an objective existence independent of the presence of observers (like you or me). Yet the universe-as-perceived is a unique product of our individual ways of seeing and thinking: When you die, the universe dies with you. How can its objective and subjective natures be reconciled? This is an ancient question, still unanswered; that Frayn begins his book with it betrays his high philosophical ambitions. To address this conundrum, he turns to an analysis of the natural world. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus claimed that even the most permanent of objects ? rocks, trees, planets ? were manifestations of the underlying flux of microscopic events. Frayn refashions this 2,500-year-old picture into a contemporary account of the objects of this world arising from the "traffic" of elementary particles. So far, so good: That a tree is constructed out of a buzz of elementary particles is something on which we can all agree. But what makes a particular buzz of protons and electrons a tree and another buzz a human being? True, the particles take on different patterns in a human and a tree, but at bottom, Frayn writes, it is human perception and human language that identify one pattern of particles as "tree" and another as "Donald Rumsfeld." Despite the apparently objective nature of trees and people as the "traffic" of fundamental stuff, their existence depends crucially, for Frayn, on their trafficking with our human senses. According to playwright-philosopher Frayn, humans emerge front and center on the stage of existence. But a natural scientist (like this reviewer) might argue that protons and electrons themselves possess an objective reality, enshrined in the laws of nature, that transcends human involvement. Well, says Frayn, just what are those laws of nature anyway? The chapter in which he deconstructs the notion of the existence of objective laws of nature is delightful ? even if one disagrees (as I do) with his conclusion that such objective laws do not exist. In a flurry of footnotes, he documents the hopeless muddle scientists and philosophers have got themselves into by trying to construct a precise concept of a natural law. But although scientists may have only a fuzzy idea of the true meaning of, say, the standard model of elementary-particle physics, that doesn't mean they can't use it to calculate what happens when two protons collide. Philosophical muddle-headedness doesn't imply that laws of nature don't exist; it simply implies that we don't understand them very well. Being muddle-headed about philosophy may well be a precondition for a scientific career: A scientist who worries about the ontological status of the second law of thermodynamics will do much worse science than one who explores the second law's implications for heat flow. Frayn's discussion of causality and chance is illuminating, and his treatment of time reflects his extensive knowledge of physics ? notably quantum mechanics, whose physics, let alone its ontological status, is highly confusing. (An electron can be here and there at the same time.) The evolution of a quantum-mechanical system is in some funny sense both deterministic and probabilistic. Quantum mechanics makes even the simple notion of a number indeterminate: Two plus two equal four? Guess again! Here, Frayn's gift for exposition and explanation is a godsend. His effervescent style, which nibbles at a subject from all sides until it is helpless to conceal its secrets, perfectly matches the elusive nature of the quantum world. Frayn's style also stands him in good stead when he analyzes human agency. Consciousness, like quantum mechanics, is notoriously hard to fathom. How and why, for example, do we choose to spread marmalade rather than honey on our breakfast toast? (That cozy condiment analogy brands Frayn as an adherent of the Anglo-Saxon school of philosophy.) What goes on in our minds when we make such a choice? I don't know, I just make a decision. Why? Because I'm the decider. Frayn disentangles our thoughts and actions as we make choices and shows us our decisions from inside and out. Interestingly, his style is less suited to the philosophical treatment of words than to that of the natural world. As 20th century philosophy showed (to the chagrin of 20th century philosophers), attempts to pin down the relationship of words to objects often crash and burn; it may be the circular nature of using words to describe how words describe things that causes the trouble. The first time Frayn unravels what seemed a substantial fabric of reasoning to show its flimsiness, you're impressed. When he goes on unraveling fabric after fabric, it becomes less thrilling. It was cute when the kitten demolished the first sock, less so the seventh. OK, the socks weren't indestructible, but they were warm. Similarly, our attempts to construct models of nature or language are imperfect ? but they're better than nothing. Where "The Human Touch" makes an important contribution to 21st century philosophy is in clarifying our understanding of the truth or falsity of assertions about the world ? such as "tonight the moon is full" or "a penny is covered in copper." Although such statements seem straightforward, generations of philosophers have shown that their exact relation to reality is problematic. Frayn argues that to understand the role of factual statements, one must look at the role of analogous statements in fiction. The book's core analyzes the role of assertion in Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin": The assertion "Onegin shot Lensky" has no factual content in the real world; there it is neither true nor false. But in the context of Pushkin's poem, it is patently true. By detaching the status of assertions from their relationship to the real world, Frayn shows that truth or falsity is to be understood in the context of a narrative. This is a powerful insight: It frees us from the illusion that we can utter the truth independently of the context in which we speak. One of the wonderful moments in the book occurs in a footnote, where Frayn provides his own translation of those stanzas in which Onegin fires and Lensky's life, together with the universe constructed by Lensky's perception, ebbs away. The rendering of rhyme and meter (Pushkin is no pushover to translate) echoes the beating and failing of the human heart. Frayn's brilliant insight into the relationship of utterance to reality returns us to the place of humans in the universe. Meaning arises along with narrative. Human narratives differ in crucial ways from those offered by entities such as animals or computers. It is the ability to describe and make sense of things that distinguishes human language from other forms of utterance. When are we most human? "The Human Touch" tells us: It is when we are talking quietly with each other, or sitting in peace, conscious of nothing in particular, or gazing up at the night sky at that eternal universe and making it our own. Seth Lloyd, a professor of quantum-mechanical engineering at MIT, is the author of "Programming the Universe." From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 1 00:57:12 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:57:12 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn In-Reply-To: <16670941.105721172708846550.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <16670941.105721172708846550.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070228185407.025b2258@satx.rr.com> At 07:27 PM 2/28/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >Anyone read this yet? PJ >http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-lloyd18feb18,0,5286691.htmlstory?coll=cl-bookreview >BOOK REVIEW 'The Human Touch' by Michael Frayn >Do we in some sense create the universe? By Seth Lloyd By a stroke of luck: The Human Touch: Our Part in the Creation of a Universe By Michael Frayn Faber, 483pp. A thick philosophical treatise by an English playwright and novelist? Not quite the done thing, old chap. Not even sure if a drama or a novel dealing with ideas is really proper, don't you know. Good enough for those French and Germans -- Being and Nothingness, The Magic Mountain -- or Poles or Czechs like Lem and Kundera, but really, aside from oddballs like Aldous Huxley and John Fowles and perhaps A. S. Byatt, it just isn't cricket. If we must have that kind of thing declaimed from the bally stage in English, we can import Tom Stoppard, and toss the chap a knighthood for his troubles. Now those scientists, different kettle of fish. Richard Dawkins. Stephen Hawking. Don't they do some sort of philosophy? Natural philosophy, or something? Michael Frayn, though, was something of an exception to the rule, right from the start. He was a witty columnist in the '60s, an excellent mimic, ready to parody the preposterous and the pompous. His novels were best read as satire, a sort of extension of the Angry Young Men like Kingsley Amis. His fullest flowering has come within the last decade with richly inventive plays, most notably Copenhagen -- German atomic physicist Heisenberg confronting Danish atomic physicist Bohr and his wife Margrethe in the depths of the Second World War over the vexed topic of imminent nuclear guilt -- and Democracy, exploring West German politics in the 1980s. His interest in formal philosophy is no belated turning to eternal verities (Frayn is 73 this year), but an extension of that probing mind bubbling always beneath the surface of his fictions. Indeed, his Cambridge degree was in Moral Sciences, an archaic term for philosophy, as Natural Philosophy is an archaic term for the sciences. His studies were pursued at the height of the Cold War, and followed two years of military service in which he specialised in Russian, developing an interest in language that fitted well with what has been called the linguistic turn in western philosophy (away from positivism and the grand theories that preceded it). Now he returns to those old stamping grounds, conducting a long, long, unremittingly long tutorial under the benign virtual gaze of his own favourite Cambridge tutor, Jonathan Bennett, former professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia. I was relieved to see Frayn's admission that Bennett rejected, as I did, "most of all the central argument, which he regards as `anthropocentrism run amok'." The trouble with Frayn's ambitious book, or lay sermon, which I began at a high pitch of excited anticipation (as I had many years ago with Douglas Hofstadter's G?del, Escher, Bach), is twofold. Its polymathic ambition is preposterously over the top. And the paradox with which it struggles for nearly 500 pages isn't one. Unlike the implied Colonel Blimp of my opening paragraph, I am all in favour of intellectual ambition and reckless connections soldered between firewalled disciplines -- but it really is a bit hard to take seriously a philosopher at home who wishes to unsettle us on the topics of grammar (Chomsky is not only wrong but laughably so), quantum theory, the status of scientific laws in general, the mysterious nature of number, whether reality is any more definite than fiction, and what is fiction anyway, dreaming, deity and faith (believers are not only not believers but laughably so), causality... Oddly enough, the one topic that isn't tormented to within an inch of its epistemological life is moral science, assuming there is such a thing. The repeated refrain ? the reFrayn, therefore -- is what he dubs our "traffic with the world", and the supposed paradox that our part in the creation of the (or a) universe is entirely crucial, even though we are nothing but froth on the surface of an otherwise meaningless spume billions of years old. Oh no! Not that "You create your own Reality" New Age drivel? Well, no, of course not. Frayn is an intensely intelligent adult. He is not going to fall into that trap. Or... is he? Can the moon be there when nobody is observing it? A proposition apparently embedded in quantum mechanics, that question tormented Einstein, who thought, as you and I do, that it was ridiculous. Yet quantum mechanics turns out to be right, and Einstein wrong, although not necessarily about the independent reality of the moon, luckily. Frayn seems to have got his foot stuck in the same tar, and he happily winds himself tighter and tighter in its sticky bondage, conducting a relentless Socratic dialogue with an imaginary partner whose answers he provides. Sometimes the partner appears to be his wife, sometimes an old friend, or his grown child or perhaps grandchild, sometimes the "astute reader" writers tend to invoke when they've just pulled a swifty. This quick and intelligent Other fires back all the smart ripostes we also wish to offer, but Frayn is always there up ahead, smarter still, winning all the arguments. You can't blame him, after all. If his imaginary opponent came up with a better reply, he'd be obliged to grab it himself. This is a search for truth, you know. But wait -- what do we mean by "truth"? And what do we mean by "mean"? And what do we mean by "we"? It's all the fun of a Philosophy 101 course, spiced up with Broadway-grade whimsy and bon mots. The astute reader will have noticed that giveaway phrase in Frayn's subtitle: "Our part in..." Is it an accident that Frayn is a playwright, that all world's a stage, that his interest in performative language (the sort of language usage that enacts what it states, like the Queen declaring the Games open) blends linguistic philosophy in the tradition of Wittgenstein with a play script, all snappy dialogue and present tense abbreviated descriptions? No accident at all, but you can be sure that Frayn is there ahead of you. "You smile that sceptical smile of yours. You have read somewhere that I write fiction for a living, so my announcing that fiction is the archetype of truth sounds suspiciously like an armaments manufacturer insisting that war is the way to peace." Quite. Caught. Still, there it is. The starry immensity spreading outward for billions of light years did not spring from a stage director's instruction, nor do the actors give it shape except for their own small purposes and those of the audience, actors in their turn. It's not at all clear that Frayn disputes this chilly but bracing truth. "The truly mystical thing... is our consciousness, and the standing of the world in relation to it; and that is indissolubly a part of how things are in fact disposed." Reality has no meaning without a meaning-giver, a truth universally acknowledged. Frayn stands with us at the end of the biblical Day Six of creation, and sees that "the arrival of man and his dominion finally brought the long darkness of Day Zero to an end." For all we know, of course, the galaxies might swarm with other minds. Each will hold a special affection for its part in the creation of a universe. Perhaps that is what Frayn is telling us, and perhaps we need the reminder. But keep an eye out for that sticky tar -- it can get everywhere. ============= [and as a bonus:] Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos By Seth Lloyd Jonathan Cape, 221 pp Back when making an urn out of mud was hi-tech, sages taught that the universe had been turned on a potter's wheel, life shaped from damp soil by the deity's hands. In a yet more earthy image, ancient peoples supposed that heaven and earth formed from the sprayed semen of some lusty god; later, splattered milk from a sacred cow did a more decorous job. With the rise of literacy and the oil lamp, creation became text written upon the void: "Let there be Light!" Machines put in their appearance, and before you could say "Newtonian physics" everyone figured the world resembled a big steam engine. Sir James Jeans, an early cosmologist, declared that the universe was more like a Great Thought. Today, there's a computer on every desktop and in every cellphone, so it's not surprising that the Great Thought starts to look like... pure information. And not your father's information, the sort in the library. This is information with a vengeance: qubits, quantum information from parallel worlds. A bit describes a single choice with two mutually exclusive answers. Yes or no, boy or girl, alive or dead. It's the basis of science. Does theory A match the experimental results better than theory B? It's also at the root of everyday decisions. Shall I take that path, or this? But wait, perhaps four or five choices are available? True, but once you've chosen one path, all the others collapse into "the roads not taken". Quantum physics makes that quite literal, in an odd way that goes beyond our usual experience. When a particle of light darts from a lamp to this page and then back to your eye, it always takes the path of least action, the shortest possible route. But in doing so, according to quantum theory, it actually took all possible pathways, which scrunched together to create that single shortest trip. What's difficult to grasp about this bizarre perspective is that everything in the cosmos functions by those quantum rules. Underneath the everyday stolid sensible world, true reality is this hissing, seething fury of alternatives jammed on top of each other. To describe it, physics needs not just bits, the yes/no, one/zero binary choices of arithmetic and computer science, but qubits, units of information that contain both yes and no, one and zero. So what can you buy with these strange new tools of thought? For Seth Lloyd, a distinguished theorist of computation and professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, and a pioneer of quantum computing, it's crucial that everything in the universe is made of qubits. Every atom, every elementary particle, is a tiny quantum computer that registers information, processes it, passes it along not as a stream of crisp binary code but in a blur of superimposed but tightly constrained possibilities. Is this any more than a fancy way of saying the same thing? Yes, insists Professor Lloyd, because quantum computers can scratch itches that ordinary digital computers can't reach. As yet, in labs, only very limited quantum computers have been built -- but they do exist, so we know that they're not just somebody's clever but unlikely brainstorm. With a quantum computer, you can explore simultaneously all possible answers to a given question, and see the correct answer instantly fall out as the incorrect answers obliterate each other -- like out-of-phase sound waves in a first-class passenger's noise-reduction headset. But if the universe is not just a regular computer, but a cosmic quantum computer, what is it calculating? Seth Lloyd offers an inevitable answer: it is calculating itself. The universe is no longer a book written by a divine author, scribbling and discarding multiple drafts. It is a colossal computation in which all those drafts come into existence at once and, in the jargon of physics, interfere constructively and destructively with each other. In the end, what you see is what you get, but it's just the faintest after-image of the compressed multiplicity of its computation. "In this picture," Lloyd says, "the universe embarks on all possible computations at once." For us, a computation is a sort of strictly organised thought. Might we, therefore, imagine the universe not as the thought of God (an old idea) but as thinking a kind of God into existence, as process theology used to claim? "Some of the information processing the universe performs is indeed thought -- human thought... but the vast majority... lies in the collision of atoms, in the slight motions of matter and light... Such universal `thoughts' are humble: they consist of elementary particles just minding their own business." Yes, but as the universe expands and cools, Lloyds foresees life reaching "to encompass first stars, and galaxies, then clusters of galaxies, and eventually, it would take billions of years to have a single thought." Such cosmic vistas can be remote and terrifying, as well as awe-inspiring, but Lloyd's treatment of the computational cosmos is laced with charming and sometimes deeply moving anecdotes: his gauche encounter with the brilliant Jorge Luis Borges, who first depicted in literary imagination a universe of infinite pathways; the tragic death of his no less brilliant physics mentor, Heinz Pagels, who crashed down a gully while they climbed Pyramid Peak near Aspen, betrayed by a childhood polio injury. "While he lived, Heinz programmed his own piece of the universe. The resulting computation unfolds in us and around us." Abstract consolation, but profoundly felt. Meanwhile, the cosmos continues its immense and star-blazing computation. Perhaps, since we're part of it, carrying our memories forward, that computation is not finally meaningless. ============= From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Mar 1 03:30:01 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:30:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn Message-ID: <16409170.121771172719801399.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >By a stroke of luck: > >The Human Touch: Our Part in the Creation of a Universe >By Michael Frayn >Faber, 483pp. > >Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos >By Seth Lloyd >Jonathan Cape, 221 pp Hey, Damien. Did you write those reviews? PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 1 04:02:54 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:02:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn In-Reply-To: <16409170.121771172719801399.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <16409170.121771172719801399.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070228220132.02329748@satx.rr.com> At 10:30 PM 2/28/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >Hey, Damien. Did you write those reviews? Yes, & posted here in response to yr question >Anyone read this yet? From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 1 04:05:34 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:05:34 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] HEADS UP: despres/frappr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200703010423.l214N7c1020300@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I received those notices too. I saw my pushpin was in Santa Clara, ignored it. If anyone here is buddies with Jonano Despres, please contact him offlist and ask him to desist forthwith on the presumptuousness, thanks. 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: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:15 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [extropy-chat] HEADS UP: despres/frappr > > Jonathan Despres has created a frappr map entitled "futurismo, school > of the future". I just got and email telling me that I had joined > frapper and that I was on said map. But I hadn't joined. J. Despres > had apparently created my frappr account, perhaps merely by putting me > on his map... Best, Jeff Davis From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Mar 1 05:04:32 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:04:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn Message-ID: <13199703.128081172725472101.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >>Hey, Damien. Did you write those reviews? > >Yes, & posted here in response to yr question Whoa. I ask and I really DO receive! Thanks! I have to say, however, that the contrast between your and Seth Lloyd's opinions of Frayn's work is... fascinating... to say the least. Apparently the non-storyteller has a higher opinion about the connection between reality and narrative than the storyteller does! PJ From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 1 04:57:28 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:57:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The reverse Turing Test In-Reply-To: <45E5A1A6.8080000@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <200703010511.l215BT5b012722@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ramonsky ... > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The reverse Turing Test > > ...Punfight at the O.K. corral? > Be there at noon, Sherrif Spike, the heck you bet I will : ) > Bring your sixgnus. Meet me outside the bra... What? Who told you about my bra Alex? That comment is outrageous! Oh, uh... Never mind. Wordplay. OK, I was mistaken, the comment was withinrageous. So what if a comment is exactly on the borderline between outrageous and withinrageous? Do the prefixes cancel each other and the comment is rageous? spike From amara at amara.com Thu Mar 1 07:22:01 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:22:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] HEADS UP: despres/frappr Message-ID: Spike: >I received those notices too. I saw my pushpin was in Santa Clara, ignored >it. If anyone here is buddies with Jonano Despres, please contact him >offlist and ask him to desist forthwith on the presumptuousness, thanks. Writing him nicely won't work, Spike. He has a torrid history of doing things like this. Someone will need to contact frappr and have them shut him down. http://www.frappr.com/?a=feedback I suspect that all of those 'visitor' people who are the ~120 members are unwilling participants in his 'school'. 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 sentience at pobox.com Thu Mar 1 07:56:05 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:56:05 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn In-Reply-To: <13199703.128081172725472101.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <13199703.128081172725472101.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <45E68715.7040205@pobox.com> pjmanney wrote: > > I have to say, however, that the contrast between your and Seth > Lloyd's opinions of Frayn's work is... fascinating... to say the > least. Apparently the non-storyteller has a higher opinion about the > connection between reality and narrative than the storyteller does! That's no more surprising than that a magician should be less enchanted by his own artifice than the audience. Anyone who writes stories knows that they are constructed to be unreal; the reader, by design, is wrapped only in the enchantment. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From pgptag at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 08:08:35 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:08:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as a reality based religion Message-ID: <470a3c520703010008o4bb79f56m610cee1affd35e31@mail.gmail.com> http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/transhumanism_as_a_reality_based_religion/ Wesley J. Smith says: "Hughes believes that humans will one day be made immortal and that we will all be able to upload our minds into computers where we will spend eternity enjoying group consciousnesses with our fellow post humans. Of the two of us, I hardly think I am the one who is reality challenged? Transhumanism is religion. And it definitely isn't reality based". My comment: Who is reality challenged, one who believes in science or one who believes in Santa Claus? I have never been able to see any fundamental difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Claus. In both cases, one is believing in something for which there is no evidence. Sure, I am not able to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. But the existence of Santa Claus would be so strongly against our scientific knowledge that I think the safest assumption is that Santa Claus does not exist. Same for God. Mind uploading is a future technology that does not exist yet, and will not be developed next year. My best guess is that developing operational mind uploading technology will take 30 years. But even if mind uploading technology does not exist yet, it is perfectly compatible with our scientific knowledge. The history of science and technology demonstrates that is something can be done (in the sense of not being a violation of scientific laws), sooner or later it will be done. So Wesley yes, I think you are the one who is reality challenged. Is transhumanism a religion? I do not think "religion" is a very appropriate definition of transhumanism. We do not share the self-righteousness, closed mindedness, bigotry and intolerance found in most religions. You say that the religious right opposes the genocide at Darfur, but History and CNN say that the religious right mentality (in many religions) has been and continues to be directly responsible of many genocides all over the planet. And of course, transhumanism is not a religion because it is not based on revelation without evidence. Transhumanists only believe in a heaven that we can build, if and when we develop the necessary capabilities. But "religion" has also, in my opinion, positive connotations. It is about transcending our current limits and becoming more, much more, than what we are. It is about hope and happiness. In this sense I am willing to accept the label "religion" for the transhumanist worldview. A transhumanist religion, if such a thing existed, would be a kinder, tolerant, inclusive and forgiving religion based on science and humanism. From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Thu Mar 1 15:23:22 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 07:23:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as a reality based religion In-Reply-To: <470a3c520703010008o4bb79f56m610cee1affd35e31@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <698870.51334.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> If you're going to call transhumanism a religion, would you also call modern medicine a religion? Computer use? I wouldn't. Making positive things happen in reality has nothing to do with religion. "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 1 22:25:22 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:25:22 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Slight variation on a theme that has been making the rounds. {8-] After reading Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, I want to live life in reverse, as a cryonaut from Tralfamador: You start out frozen solid, but then you thaw. You are still dead of course, so you get that unpleasantness out of the way right up front. Then you wake up alive in an old age home which really sucks at first because you are sick and frail, but your hearing and vision steadily improve, aches and pains go away and you are feeling better every day. Eventually you get kicked out for being too healthy. You enjoy your retirement and regularly give back your pension checks, which actually increase in buying power over time because of deflation. Then you start work with a big party where they take away your gold watch on your first day. You work 40 years until you're too young to work. You go to college, hang with the lads, drink excessively, party, you're generally promiscuous. Any consequences of this dissipated lifestyle disappear as if by magic. You go to high school to prepare for the past, then primary school, you become a kid, you play, and you have fewer and fewer responsibilities, then none at all. Your parents take care of everything. They look marvelously healthy and sturdy these days. Then you become a baby, and then you are born. You spend your last 9 months floating peacefully in calm luxury, in spa-like conditions - central heating, room service on tap, and then... You finish off as an orgasm. From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 02:39:15 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:39:15 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 3/2/07, spike wrote: > Slight variation on a theme that has been making the rounds. {8-] > > > After reading Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, I want to live life in > reverse, as a cryonaut from Tralfamador: > > You start out frozen solid, but then you thaw. You are still dead of > course, so you get that unpleasantness out of the way right up front. > > Then you wake up alive in an old age home which really sucks at first > because you are sick and frail, but your hearing and vision steadily > improve, aches and pains go away and you are feeling better every day. > > Eventually you get kicked out for being too healthy. > > You enjoy your retirement and regularly give back your pension checks, > which actually increase in buying power over time because of deflation. > > Then you start work with a big party where they take away your gold watch > on your first day. > > You work 40 years until you're too young to work. You go to college, > hang with the lads, drink excessively, party, you're generally > promiscuous. > Any consequences of this dissipated lifestyle disappear as if by magic. > > You go to high school to prepare for the past, then primary school, you > become a kid, you play, and you have fewer and fewer responsibilities, > then > none at all. Your parents take care of everything. They look marvelously > healthy and sturdy these days. > > Then you become a baby, and then you are born. > > You spend your last 9 months floating peacefully in calm luxury, in > spa-like conditions - central heating, room service on tap, and then... > > You finish off as an orgasm. I probably shouldn't spoil a good story with philosophy, but there is no difference between living your life forward and living your life in reverse, provided that each expereince is exactly the same at each moment in each case, e.g. you don't remember being 40 when you are 20. It is like imagining that you swap places with George Bush: if you remember being you when you are him then something interesting has happened, but if you instantaneously swap over his body and mind for your body and mind, then no-one will notice any difference, and in fact it could have happened while you read the last sentence. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Fri Mar 2 03:58:15 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:58:15 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <45E7A0D7.8090302@pobox.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I probably shouldn't spoil a good story with philosophy, but there is no > difference between living your life forward and living your life in > reverse, provided that each expereince is exactly the same at each > moment in each case, e.g. you don't remember being 40 when you are 20. > It is like imagining that you swap places with George Bush: if you > remember being you when you are him then something interesting has > happened, but if you instantaneously swap over his body and mind for > your body and mind, then no-one will notice any difference, and in fact > it could have happened while you read the last sentence. Hear hear. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 2 04:40:21 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:40:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <45E7A0D7.8090302@pobox.com> References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <45E7A0D7.8090302@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070301223903.02453e68@satx.rr.com> At 07:58 PM 3/1/2007 -0800, Eliezer wrote: >Hear hear. Or, more strictly, Hear . raeH From pj at pj-manney.com Fri Mar 2 05:15:38 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:15:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn Message-ID: <28002571.234111172812538359.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >That's no more surprising than that a magician should be less enchanted >by his own artifice than the audience. Anyone who writes stories knows >that they are constructed to be unreal; the reader, by design, is >wrapped only in the enchantment. I think that's a facile, but unsatisfactory answer, given the tone and content of Damien's review. I was hoping to get Damien to expand on it with my baiting, but I accept that his review is his last word on the subject. He wrote enough. In comparing the two reviews, I suspect it comes down to a disagreement on the underlying theories of language Frayn relies upon (I did note Damien's violent dismissal of Chomsky. I only begin to grasp Chomsky at the most superficial level, linguistics not being my thing, and Damien is more than welcome to his opinion. It is certainly shared by others.), as well as matters of writing style and structure (Damien found it annoying; Lloyd found it seductive) and the crucial objective vs. subjective reality question and what philosophies underlie your tendency to lean to one side or the other of the debate. In fact, I'd say your statement is backward, or at least many writers would think it so. (Perhaps Damien does. Or he doesn't.) In my experience, people are wrapped in the enchantment when something at the heart of a story touches on truth, not unreality. As Damien knows (and Frayn discovered in his 'sticky tar') the truth may be out there, but it's damned messy. Stories often bring us closer to the feeling of truth than the analytical exploration, because stories embrace the messy, the contradictory, the obtuse nature of existence. That is part of 'truth' they excel at. Analysis, on the other hand, fails when too messy. And I don't know about you, but I know quite a few magicians. And they're pretty damned impressed by the great performances of fellow prestidigitators (Penn and Teller not withstanding...). In this case, it seems Damien expected to be wowed -- and wasn't -- by Frayn's performance. PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 2 05:30:11 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:30:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn In-Reply-To: <28002571.234111172812538359.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <28002571.234111172812538359.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070301232544.0255c250@satx.rr.com> At 12:15 AM 3/2/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >(I did note Damien's violent dismissal of Chomsky. No no NO. *Frayn's* violent dismissal. I'm summarizing his attitude in that parenthesis, as in the one about religion, as I was summarizing/impersonating/pillorying the attiude of olde fogeys in my opening par. Look more carefully: < it really is a bit hard to take seriously a philosopher at home who wishes to unsettle us on the topics of grammar (Chomsky is not only wrong but laughably so)... whether reality is any more definite than fiction, and what is fiction anyway, dreaming, deity and faith (believers are not only not believers but laughably so), > Damien Broderick From pj at pj-manney.com Fri Mar 2 05:42:54 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:42:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn Message-ID: <10798780.235581172814174941.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Damien wrote: >No no NO. *Frayn's* violent dismissal. I'm summarizing his attitude >in that parenthesis, as in the one about religion, as I was >summarizing/impersonating/pillorying the attiude of olde fogeys in my >opening par. Look more carefully: > >< it really is a bit hard to take seriously a >philosopher at home who wishes to unsettle us on the >topics of grammar (Chomsky is not only wrong but >laughably so)... whether reality is any more definite >than fiction, and what is fiction anyway, >dreaming, deity and faith (believers are not only >not believers but laughably so), > So sorry to put words in your mouth! (Although re-reading it, it's still confusing.) [Does that mean you disagree with his disagreement with the often disagreement-provoking Chomsky...? ;-) ] PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 2 05:49:39 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:49:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070301232544.0255c250@satx.rr.com> References: <28002571.234111172812538359.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070301232544.0255c250@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070301234715.02457bb8@satx.rr.com> At 11:30 PM 3/1/2007 -0600, I wrote hastily: >No no NO... Look more carefully: Ahem. That verges on the rude, if not well over the verge. Of course, it's the journalist's job to be clear, so berating the reader for not "looking carefully" is shifting the blame. Sorry about that. Damien Broderick From pj at pj-manney.com Fri Mar 2 05:54:50 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:54:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn Message-ID: <30213712.236121172814890851.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Damien wrote: >Ahem. That verges on the rude, if not well over the verge. Of course, >it's the journalist's job to be clear, so berating the reader for not >"looking carefully" is shifting the blame. Sorry about that. No worries, mate! PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 2 06:00:36 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:00:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn In-Reply-To: <10798780.235581172814174941.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <10798780.235581172814174941.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070301235138.023f4f18@satx.rr.com> At 12:42 AM 3/2/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >re-reading it, it's still confusing.) [Does that mean you disagree >with his disagreement with the often disagreement-provoking Chomsky...? ;-) ] There's no way to tell from that paragraph: I'm just summarizing the great, even absurd, plenitude of the domains he takes in, and his unfashionable (e.g. contra Chomsky) or apparently paradoxical (e.g. believers are not really believers) stances. I might as well add that after my piece appeared in an Australian newspaper I got a very pleasant letter from Frayn's old Cambridge philosophy tutor (who is profoundly and repeatedly acknowledged in the book), who commented that he'd eagerly read all the reviews he could find and regarded mine as the only one "that has put precise fingers on the two central defects of the work - its tackling far too much, and its being organised around a non-existent 'paradox'." FWIW. :) Damien Broderick From pj at pj-manney.com Fri Mar 2 06:11:42 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:11:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn Message-ID: <19521893.236861172815902860.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Damien wrote: >I might as well add that after my piece appeared in an Australian >newspaper I got a very pleasant letter from Frayn's old Cambridge >philosophy tutor (who is profoundly and repeatedly acknowledged in >the book), who commented that he'd eagerly read all the reviews he >could find and regarded mine as the only one "that has put precise >fingers on the two central defects of the work - its tackling far too >much, and its being organised around a non-existent 'paradox'." FWIW. :) I LOVE that! (But if Frayn is in his seventies, then how old is his tutor and can I have some of whatever he's having!) PJ From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 2 06:39:05 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:39:05 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn In-Reply-To: <19521893.236861172815902860.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <19521893.236861172815902860.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070302003715.024feec0@satx.rr.com> At 01:11 AM 3/2/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >(But if Frayn is in his seventies, then how old is his tutor and can >I have some of whatever he's having! Read about Jonathan Bennett and his remarkable work in making the philosophical classics intelligible to modern readers without dumbing them down at http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_jfb.html "Having retired from teaching in 1997, Jonathan Bennett now (2007) lives with his wife Gillian on Bowen Island, British Columbia, where he is much occupied with preparing more of these early modern philosophy texts." From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri Mar 2 04:03:16 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 23:03:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >e.g. you don't remember being 40 when you are 20. It >is like imagining that you swap places with George >Bush: if you remember being you when you are him then >something interesting has happened, but if you >instantaneously swap over his body and mind for your >body and mind, then no-one will notice any >difference, and in fact it could have happened while >you read the last sentence. Memory plays a huge function between how many things one remembers as being a positive or negative "interesting things that happen". Do you have a philosophy as to why many people choose to keep in their memory all the negative "interesting things that happen" instead of the positive? >I probably shouldn't spoil a good story with >philosophy, but there is no difference between living >your life forward and living your life in reverse, >provided that each experience is exactly the same at >each moment in each case.. I enjoyed your example but i'm not really clear by what you mean. Could you explain? Thanks, just curious:) Anna __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kevinpet at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 06:59:50 2007 From: kevinpet at gmail.com (Kevin Peterson) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:59:50 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The war on aging... Message-ID: <70c6596f0702282259i61fc59ecmd332efd624adf1fd@mail.gmail.com> Robert Bradbury wrote: > Some of you may have already seen the online petition for "Indefinite Life > Extension". > ... Are you kidding? You want the government involved in pursuing life extension research? First, it opens everything up to the whims of the electorate. Secondly, individual life extension is not in the best public policy interests of the country. Show me a petition that says "stay out of our way, let me engage in responsible germline human genetic engineering, and start modifying policy (such as social security) to be compatible with significantly extended lifespans" and I'll sign it. A "war on aging"? FDA declare aging a disease? This is not the Apollo program, it is far too long-term to be carried out by a democratic government. (It might be possible for a non-democratic government to carry out such a program, but you probably wouldn't want to live under such a government.) Personally, I don't see the emphasis on life extension. Life extension to the point of a healthy 100 years will be easily attainable within a few years of letting go of our qualms about the techniques. And by the time those who benefit from the first, easy steps in that direction get old, it'll be easier to just upload yourself. Kevin From citta437 at aol.com Thu Mar 1 01:43:10 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:43:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Why did the big bang happen? Message-ID: <8C929BA1A73F26B-16C8-2D74@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> "Why did the big bang happen? Where did this thought come from? Psychologically, it is a projection of a desire for satisfaction. In physics, the theory of the big bang is a working hypothesis for the time being until proven wrong by further scientific tests using a objective device besides critical thinking. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 2 08:10:04 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:10:04 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> At 10:38 AM 2/28/2007 -0500, someone wrote: >The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there >something rather than nothing? Good dog in heat, I get so tired of this fake question. What makes anyone suppose that "nothing" is the default physical or metaphysical condition, or even an intelligible construct? Nobody has ever seen "nothing", just the displacement of one something from here to there or even out of sight, leaving behind another something. Get over it. If the question is "why are there gradients rather than universal smoothness?" there are answers available. Damien Broderick From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 09:15:06 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:15:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical and Positive Thinking In-Reply-To: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <616154.8085.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- citta437 at aol.com wrote: > The question remains in our universe of thoughts, > why is there > something rather than nothing? OM. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 10:23:13 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:23:13 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3/2/07, Anna Taylor wrote: --- Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > >e.g. you don't remember being 40 when you are 20. It > >is like imagining that you swap places with George > >Bush: if you remember being you when you are him then > >something interesting has happened, but if you > >instantaneously swap over his body and mind for your > >body and mind, then no-one will notice any > >difference, and in fact it could have happened while > >you read the last sentence. > > Memory plays a huge function between how many things > one remembers as being a positive or negative > "interesting things that happen". Do you have a > philosophy as to why many people choose to keep in > their memory all the negative "interesting things that > happen" instead of the positive? It has partly to do with mood and personality. Depressed people tend to remember and ruminate about all the negative things, or view neutral or even positive things in a negative way. Cognitive behavioural therapy and antidepressant medication help to change this way of thinking. Manic people, on the other hand, are the opposite: they dismiss bad things and turn everything into a cause for optimism. Mood-stabilising and antipsychotic medication is the usual treatment for mania. >I probably shouldn't spoil a good story with > >philosophy, but there is no difference between living > >your life forward and living your life in reverse, > >provided that each experience is exactly the same at > >each moment in each case.. > > I enjoyed your example but i'm not really clear by > what you mean. Could you explain? Suppose all the moments of your life (your observer moments) could be seamlessly sliced up, so that their content remained the same but they could be shuffled like cards. This could actually happen if you were part of a computer simulation: the program could be stopped at any point, saved to memory, and restored at a later time or on another computer. The point is that you would have no way of knowing, without being provided with external information, when or for how long your program was stopped, how fast the computer clock was running, whether the observer moments were being run in sequence, what machines your program was being run on, or indeed any details about the substrate of your implementation. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 2 10:48:04 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:48:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070302104804.GO31912@leitl.org> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:23:13PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Suppose all the moments of your life (your observer moments) could be > seamlessly sliced up, so that their content remained the same but they > could be shuffled like cards. This could actually happen if you were But you would have to run the computation, to compute the sequence of trajectory frames before you can start reshuffling anything. > part of a computer simulation: the program could be stopped at any > point, saved to memory, and restored at a later time or on another > computer. The point is that you would have no way of knowing, without No problem, as long you have a last state to resume from, which continues the trajectory. > being provided with external information, when or for how long your > program was stopped, how fast the computer clock was running, whether > the observer moments were being run in sequence, what machines your How can you compute things out of sequence? The nearest analogon is hash Life (building a hash table of recursive light cones, using the fact that conformation distribution is very far from random, which allows very large speedups, at least on older sequential), and I'm not at all sure what this cause to in-world embedded observers (Life is an all-purpose computer). If you're a process, and you do some fancy nonlinear things in the trajectory computation, even though the target state is the same, I'm not buying the first-person observation is ok. > program was being run on, or indeed any details about the substrate of > your implementation. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 11:16:14 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:16:14 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <20070302104804.GO31912@leitl.org> References: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20070302104804.GO31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: Suppose there are two programs: program A is my life on 1st March 2007 and program B is my life on 2nd March 2007. Granted, the programmer needs to know all sorts of details about my past life before he can write the programs, and in particular he has to know what is going into program A before he can write program B, but we assume that he has done his job properly. Now here I am, and it's the 2nd of March by my calendar, so it must be program B that is running. I certainly remember yesterday as being the 1st of March, but does this give me any information at all as to whether program A was run yesterday, has not yet been run, is being run simultaneously on a separate machine or process, or any details at all about its implementation? Stathis Papaioannou On 3/2/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:23:13PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Suppose all the moments of your life (your observer moments) could be > > seamlessly sliced up, so that their content remained the same but > they > > could be shuffled like cards. This could actually happen if you were > > But you would have to run the computation, to compute the sequence > of trajectory frames before you can start reshuffling anything. > > > part of a computer simulation: the program could be stopped at any > > point, saved to memory, and restored at a later time or on another > > computer. The point is that you would have no way of knowing, without > > No problem, as long you have a last state to resume from, which > continues the trajectory. > > > being provided with external information, when or for how long your > > program was stopped, how fast the computer clock was running, whether > > the observer moments were being run in sequence, what machines your > > How can you compute things out of sequence? The nearest analogon is > hash Life (building a hash table of recursive light cones, using the > fact that conformation distribution is very far from random, which > allows very large speedups, at least on older sequential), and I'm > not at all sure what this cause to in-world embedded observers (Life > is an all-purpose computer). > > If you're a process, and you do some fancy nonlinear things in > the trajectory computation, even though the target state is the same, > I'm not buying the first-person observation is ok. > > > program was being run on, or indeed any details about the substrate > of > > your implementation. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFF6ADkdbAkQ4sp9r4RAlC7AKCRLB0Z3+9/q7BDGEEjN+zTEYCxlACeJrMQ > ttLOn51tcw1jL518Dgq3LJk= > =aAFG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Fri Mar 2 12:31:05 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:31:05 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1107.163.1.72.81.1172838665.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:38 AM 2/28/2007 -0500, someone wrote: >>The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there >>something rather than nothing? > > Good dog in heat, I get so tired of this fake question. What makes > anyone suppose that "nothing" is the default physical or metaphysical > condition, or even an intelligible construct? I often ponder why there is something rather than everything. My usual answer is the anthropic principle, but outside our neat little domain lies all the other Tegmark Level 4 possibilities. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 15:20:07 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:20:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20070302104804.GO31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <62c14240703020720x777237d8y10d9d6226247101f@mail.gmail.com> On 3/2/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Suppose there are two programs: program A is my life on 1st March 2007 and > program B is my life on 2nd March 2007. Granted, the programmer needs to > know all sorts of details about my past life before he can write the > programs, and in particular he has to know what is going into program A > before he can write program B, but we assume that he has done his job > properly. Now here I am, and it's the 2nd of March by my calendar, so it > must be program B that is running. I certainly remember yesterday as being > the 1st of March, but does this give me any information at all as to whether > program A was run yesterday, has not yet been run, is being run > simultaneously on a separate machine or process, or any details at all about > its implementation? Suppose your life/program is represented as a high dimension manifold, then it would be possible to compute a given moment by selecting a point this object's the surface. The memory/state information would be relative to that point, but not necessarily require iterative calculation. I've thought about this using the frames of a film - each 1/24 of a second contains stateful information about it's placement in the sequence. For a movie you know well enough, you could probably resequence a random pile of film clips from these clues (within some threshold of accuracy: 1/24 of a second doesn't allow a great deal of variation from frame to frame) From jonkc at att.net Fri Mar 2 17:20:41 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:20:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A movie recommendation References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070226110417.0408ee80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><001601c75a46$078a4060$fa0a4e0c@MyComputer> <6B76408D-E6E9-46B9-B2E9-E02C82D25765@randallsquared.com> Message-ID: <007b01c75cef$23db6b30$a50d4e0c@MyComputer> If you have not already seen the great movie The Prestige do yourself a favor and see it immediately, but don't read any more of this message. "Randall Randall" > As for the movie supporting your view of copies, I don't think it did. > The makers clearly wanted us to see the the copykiller as a bad person - But it was the original Angier who did the first killing, shooting his poor copy the first time he used the machine just a few seconds after he created him. My favorite line was when Angier said " It took courage to walk into that machine every night, not knowing if I'd be the man in the tank drowning or the man in The Prestige". Of course he was both. As for Borden, he had no copy, just a natural clone better known as a identical twin. John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Fri Mar 2 17:39:32 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:39:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The world's smallest transistor References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070226110417.0408ee80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><001601c75a46$078a4060$fa0a4e0c@MyComputer><6B76408D-E6E9-46B9-B2E9-E02C82D25765@randallsquared.com> <007b01c75cef$23db6b30$a50d4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <009401c75cf1$c1cdc430$a50d4e0c@MyComputer> The world's smallest transistor has just been made, it is only one carbon atom thick and less than 50 atoms wide. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228170340.htm John K Clark From randall at randallsquared.com Fri Mar 2 18:32:17 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:32:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] A movie recommendation In-Reply-To: <007b01c75cef$23db6b30$a50d4e0c@MyComputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070226110417.0408ee80@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><001601c75a46$078a4060$fa0a4e0c@MyComputer> <6B76408D-E6E9-46B9-B2E9-E02C82D25765@randallsquared.com> <007b01c75cef$23db6b30$a50d4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <26126E25-C034-493D-950C-9F0802B10E95@randallsquared.com> On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:20 PM, John K Clark wrote: > If you have not already seen the great movie The Prestige do > yourself a > favor and see it immediately, but don't read any more of this message. > > Leaving spoiler space intact. > > > > > "Randall Randall" > >> As for the movie supporting your view of copies, I don't think it >> did. >> The makers clearly wanted us to see the the copykiller as a bad >> person - > > But it was the original Angier who did the first killing, shooting > his poor > copy the first time he used the machine just a few seconds after he > created him. Yes, it was (some) Angier I was referring to. The reaction that those I watched it with was horror, not "oh, that was a neat trick which didn't harm anyone!", as I imagine you'd say. > My favorite line was when Angier said " It took courage to > walk into that machine every night, not knowing if I'd be the man > in the > tank drowning or the man in The Prestige". Of course he was both. On the face of it, it seemed that the original was the one killed every night. -- Randall Randall "[W]e ARE the market, this IS the market working, there's nothing external to be deferred to." -- Ian Bicking, on "let the market decide" From scerir at libero.it Fri Mar 2 19:11:16 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:11:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000501c75cfe$8ea4c4c0$45921f97@archimede> citta437: > The question remains in our universe of thoughts, > why is there something rather than nothing? Avantguardian: > OM. Odyssey of the Mind? Oh Man? Anders: > I often ponder why there is something > rather than everything. Making that question a bit more physical, there are papers, like 'Computational complexity of the landscape' [1], in which people try to solve general toy problems, like 'how to get the minimal (or zero) vacuum energy, given a collection of fields at choice', etc. But it turns out that computational complexity theory cannot say anything about (the hardness of) individual instances, and these toy problems seem to be intractable in general [1]. How did the universe do this or that? We usually say that the 'multiverse' did it. But some problems are too difficult even for the multiverse to solve in polynomial time. (See also 'anthropic computing' [2][3]). [1] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602072 [2] http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412187 page 1 [3] http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=181 (Reading these papers I did not understand 'everything', I only understood 'something'). From citta437 at aol.com Fri Mar 2 17:30:43 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:30:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Three questions about the vision re:Mission of ExI Message-ID: <8C92B07A41180DD-15FC-7D06@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> "The Mission of ExI in its transformational change is to serve its members by developing a core group to encourage and support the furtherance of the Proactionary Principle. Vision: Our core group uses the most advanced decision-making and forecasting methods to promote critical and creative thinking about emerging technologies. We advise the public and private sectors on policies and initiatives to better manage risks and maximize benefits and opportunities arising from emerging technologies. Our passion is helping others to improve decision-making about these technologies, especially those presenting challenges without precedent?sometimes even affecting the human condition itself. _______________ Hi, who comprised this so called core group, are they politically motivated group? Are they leaning towards a bipartisian or no particular party on issues about the war in Iraq? How do you improve decision making by this present administration or the governing party in war-torn nations? Need specific details on how this vision can be implemented without the use of force. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. =0 From citta437 at aol.com Fri Mar 2 16:27:56 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:27:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] There's entropy in extropy. Message-ID: <8C92AFEDE7B64D1-15FC-795F@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> There's no extropy without entropy in our world of thoughts. In the cosmic universe, who cares what we think? We like to think that the human species thinks intelligently. Actually, this desire to think is driven by evolution {natural selection/survival of the fittest or diversification processes}. The random process of diversification is entropic in character so desiring to escape entropic thought we dig deeper into the cause so as to organize our world of thoughts towards extropic ideas { i.e. philosophy of Transhumanism}. Paradoxically, thoughts beggets thought as desires expand to no end. Perhaps finding our place in the universe would lead us to satisfying fulfillment of all desires? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From citta437 at aol.com Fri Mar 2 15:15:35 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:15:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Metaphysical construct In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C92AF4C3174813-15FC-74EC@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> "The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there >something rather than nothing? Broderick's reply: " Good dog in heat, I get so tired of this fake question. What makes anyone suppose that "nothing" is the default physical or metaphysical condition, or even an intelligible construct? Nobody has ever seen "nothing", just the displacement of one something from here to there or even out of sight, leaving behind another something. Get over it. If the question is "why are there gradients rather than universal smoothness?" there are answers available." __________________ Hi, this metaphysical construct arises from a hungry mind {a philosophical mind} due to interactive processes, an exchange of information. If Transhumanism is a philosophy, it is a thought bordering to a belief of immortality/eternalism. I'm not saying that thought of immortality is right or wrong. Humans feel a need and a Transhumanist thinks this belief can fulfill that need if so then it can slide into dogmatism/fanaticism. However if its not a religion, as some say, because it is open to critical thinking and to scientific process of investigation why add more thoughts or philosophy in its pursuit of immortality rather than using the energy/funding to the advancement of science? REgards, Terry {Terry's Column in Zen Buddhism.org} ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:22:01 +0100 From: Amara Graps Subject: [extropy-chat] HEADS UP: despres/frappr To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Spike: >I received those notices too. I saw my pushpin was in Santa Clara, ignored >it. If anyone here is buddies with Jonano Despres, please contact him >offlist and ask him to desist forthwith on the presumptuousness, thanks. Writing him nicely won't work, Spike. He has a torrid history of doing things like this. Someone will need to contact frappr and have them shut him down. http://www.frappr.com/?a=feedback I suspect that all of those 'visitor' people who are the ~120 members are unwilling participants in his 'school'. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:56:05 -0800 From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <45E68715.7040205 at pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed pjmanney wrote: > > I have to say, however, that the contrast between your and Seth > Lloyd's opinions of Frayn's work is... fascinating... to say the > least. Apparently the non-storyteller has a higher opinion about the > connection between reality and narrative than the storyteller does! That's no more surprising than that a magician should be less enchanted by his own artifice than the audience. Anyone who writes stories knows that they are constructed to be unreal; the reader, by design, is wrapped only in the enchantment. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:08:35 +0100 From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as a reality based religion To: wta-talk at transhumanism.com, "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <470a3c520703010008o4bb79f56m610cee1affd35e31 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/transhumanism_as_a_reality_based_religion/ Wesley J. Smith says: "Hughes believes that humans will one day be made immortal and that we will all be able to upload our minds into computers where we will spend eternity enjoying group consciousnesses with our fellow post humans. Of the two of us, I hardly think I am the one who is reality challenged? Transhumanism is religion. And it definitely isn't reality based". My comment: Who is reality challenged, one who believes in science or one who believes in Santa Claus? I have never been able to see any fundamental difference between believing in God and believing in Santa Claus. In both cases, one is believing in something for which there is no evidence. Sure, I am not able to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. But the existence of Santa Claus would be so strongly against our scientific knowledge that I think the safest assumption is that Santa Claus does not exist. Same for God. Mind uploading is a future technology that does not exist yet, and will not be developed next year. My best guess is that developing operational mind uploading technology will take 30 years. But even if mind uploading technology does not exist yet, it is perfectly compatible with our scientific knowledge. The history of science and technology demonstrates that is something can be done (in the sense of not being a violation of scientific laws), sooner or later it will be done. So Wesley yes, I think you are the one who is reality challenged. Is transhumanism a religion? I do not think "religion" is a very appropriate definition of transhumanism. We do not share the self-righteousness, closed mindedness, bigotry and intolerance found in most religions. You say that the religious right opposes the genocide at Darfur, but History and CNN say that the religious right mentality (in many religions) has been and continues to be directly responsible of many genocides all over the planet. And of course, transhumanism is not a religion because it is not based on revelation without evidence. Transhumanists only believe in a heaven that we can build, if and when we develop the necessary capabilities. But "religion" has also, in my opinion, positive connotations. It is about transcending our current limits and becoming more, much more, than what we are. It is about hope and happiness. In this sense I am willing to accept the label "religion" for the transhumanist worldview. A transhumanist religion, if such a thing existed, would be a kinder, tolerant, inclusive and forgiving religion based on science and humanism. ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 07:23:22 -0800 (PST) From: Anne Corwin Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as a reality based religion To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <698870.51334.qm at web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" If you're going to call transhumanism a religion, would you also call modern medicine a religion? Computer use? I wouldn't. Making positive things happen in reality has nothing to do with religion. "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070301/b8c21d1e/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 14:25:22 -0800 From: "spike" Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse To: "'ExI chat list'" Message-ID: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465 at andromeda.ziaspace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Slight variation on a theme that has been making the rounds. {8-] After reading Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, I want to live life in reverse, as a cryonaut from Tralfamador: You start out frozen solid, but then you thaw. You are still dead of course, so you get that unpleasantness out of the way right up front. Then you wake up alive in an old age home which really sucks at first because you are sick and frail, but your hearing and vision steadily improve, aches and pains go away and you are feeling better every day. Eventually you get kicked out for being too healthy. You enjoy your retirement and regularly give back your pension checks, which actually increase in buying power over time because of deflation. Then you start work with a big party where they take away your gold watch on your first day. You work 40 years until you're too young to work. You go to college, hang with the lads, drink excessively, party, you're generally promiscuous. Any consequences of this dissipated lifestyle disappear as if by magic. You go to high school to prepare for the past, then primary school, you become a kid, you play, and you have fewer and fewer responsibilities, then none at all. Your parents take care of everything. They look marvelously healthy and sturdy these days. Then you become a baby, and then you are born. You spend your last 9 months floating peacefully in calm luxury, in spa-like conditions - central heating, room service on tap, and then... You finish off as an orgasm. ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:39:15 +1100 From: "Stathis Papaioannou" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On 3/2/07, spike wrote: > Slight variation on a theme that has been making the rounds. {8-] > > > After reading Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, I want to live life in > reverse, as a cryonaut from Tralfamador: > > You start out frozen solid, but then you thaw. You are still dead of > course, so you get that unpleasantness out of the way right up front. > > Then you wake up alive in an old age home which really sucks at first > because you are sick and frail, but your hearing and vision steadily > improve, aches and pains go away and you are feeling better every day. > > Eventually you get kicked out for being too healthy. > > You enjoy your retirement and regularly give back your pension checks, > which actually increase in buying power over time because of deflation. > > Then you start work with a big party where they take away your gold watch > on your first day. > > You work 40 years until you're too young to work. You go to college, > hang with the lads, drink excessively, party, you're generally > promiscuous. > Any consequences of this dissipated lifestyle disappear as if by magic. > > You go to high school to prepare for the past, then primary school, you > become a kid, you play, and you have fewer and fewer responsibilities, > then > none at all. Your parents take care of everything. They look marvelously > healthy and sturdy these days. > > Then you become a baby, and then you are born. > > You spend your last 9 months floating peacefully in calm luxury, in > spa-like conditions - central heating, room service on tap, and then... > > You finish off as an orgasm. I probably shouldn't spoil a good story with philosophy, but there is no difference between living your life forward and living your life in reverse, provided that each expereince is exactly the same at each moment in each case, e.g. you don't remember being 40 when you are 20. It is like imagining that you swap places with George Bush: if you remember being you when you are him then something interesting has happened, but if you instantaneously swap over his body and mind for your body and mind, then no-one will notice any difference, and in fact it could have happened while you read the last sentence. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070302/f52c1cf4/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:58:15 -0800 From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <45E7A0D7.8090302 at pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I probably shouldn't spoil a good story with philosophy, but there is no > difference between living your life forward and living your life in > reverse, provided that each expereince is exactly the same at each > moment in each case, e.g. you don't remember being 40 when you are 20. > It is like imagining that you swap places with George Bush: if you > remember being you when you are him then something interesting has > happened, but if you instantaneously swap over his body and mind for > your body and mind, then no-one will notice any difference, and in fact > it could have happened while you read the last sentence. Hear hear. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:40:21 -0600 From: Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070301223903.02453e68 at satx.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:58 PM 3/1/2007 -0800, Eliezer wrote: >Hear hear. Or, more strictly, Hear . raeH ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:15:38 -0500 From: pjmanney Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn To: Message-ID: <28002571.234111172812538359.JavaMail.servlet at perfora> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: >That's no more surprising than that a magician should be less enchanted >by his own artifice than the audience. Anyone who writes stories knows >that they are constructed to be unreal; the reader, by design, is >wrapped only in the enchantment. I think that's a facile, but unsatisfactory answer, given the tone and content of Damien's review. I was hoping to get Damien to expand on it with my baiting, but I accept that his review is his last word on the subject. He wrote enough. In comparing the two reviews, I suspect it comes down to a disagreement on the underlying theories of language Frayn relies upon (I did note Damien's violent dismissal of Chomsky. I only begin to grasp Chomsky at the most superficial level, linguistics not being my thing, and Damien is more than welcome to his opinion. It is certainly shared by others.), as well as matters of writing style and structure (Damien found it annoying; Lloyd found it seductive) and the crucial objective vs. subjective reality question and what philosophies underlie your tendency to lean to one side or the other of the debate. In fact, I'd say your statement is backward, or at least many writers would think it so. (Perhaps Damien does. Or he doesn't.) In my experience, people are wrapped in the enchantment when something at the heart of a story touches on truth, not unreality. As Damien knows (and Frayn discovered in his 'sticky tar') the truth may be out there, but it's damned messy. Stories often bring us closer to the feeling of truth than the analytical exploration, because stories embrace the messy, the contradictory, the obtuse nature of existence. That is part of 'truth' they excel at. Analysis, on the other hand, fails when too messy. And I don't know about you, but I know quite a few magicians. And they're pretty damned impressed by the great performances of fellow prestidigitators (Penn and Teller not withstanding...). In this case, it seems Damien expected to be wowed -- and wasn't -- by Frayn's performance. PJ ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:30:11 -0600 From: Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070301232544.0255c250 at satx.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:15 AM 3/2/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >(I did note Damien's violent dismissal of Chomsky. No no NO. *Frayn's* violent dismissal. I'm summarizing his attitude in that parenthesis, as in the one about religion, as I was summarizing/impersonating/pillorying the attiude of olde fogeys in my opening par. Look more carefully: < it really is a bit hard to take seriously a philosopher at home who wishes to unsettle us on the topics of grammar (Chomsky is not only wrong but laughably so)... whether reality is any more definite than fiction, and what is fiction anyway, dreaming, deity and faith (believers are not only not believers but laughably so), > Damien Broderick ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:42:54 -0500 From: pjmanney Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn To: Message-ID: <10798780.235581172814174941.JavaMail.servlet at perfora> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Damien wrote: >No no NO. *Frayn's* violent dismissal. I'm summarizing his attitude >in that parenthesis, as in the one about religion, as I was >summarizing/impersonating/pillorying the attiude of olde fogeys in my >opening par. Look more carefully: > >< it really is a bit hard to take seriously a >philosopher at home who wishes to unsettle us on the >topics of grammar (Chomsky is not only wrong but >laughably so)... whether reality is any more definite >than fiction, and what is fiction anyway, >dreaming, deity and faith (believers are not only >not believers but laughably so), > So sorry to put words in your mouth! (Although re-reading it, it's still confusing.) [Does that mean you disagree with his disagreement with the often disagreement-provoking Chomsky...? ;-) ] PJ ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:49:39 -0600 From: Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070301234715.02457bb8 at satx.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:30 PM 3/1/2007 -0600, I wrote hastily: >No no NO... Look more carefully: Ahem. That verges on the rude, if not well over the verge. Of course, it's the journalist's job to be clear, so berating the reader for not "looking carefully" is shifting the blame. Sorry about that. Damien Broderick ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:54:50 -0500 From: pjmanney Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn To: Message-ID: <30213712.236121172814890851.JavaMail.servlet at perfora> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Damien wrote: >Ahem. That verges on the rude, if not well over the verge. Of course, >it's the journalist's job to be clear, so berating the reader for not >"looking carefully" is shifting the blame. Sorry about that. No worries, mate! PJ ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:00:36 -0600 From: Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070301235138.023f4f18 at satx.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:42 AM 3/2/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >re-reading it, it's still confusing.) [Does that mean you disagree >with his disagreement with the often disagreement-provoking Chomsky...? ;-) ] There's no way to tell from that paragraph: I'm just summarizing the great, even absurd, plenitude of the domains he takes in, and his unfashionable (e.g. contra Chomsky) or apparently paradoxical (e.g. believers are not really believers) stances. I might as well add that after my piece appeared in an Australian newspaper I got a very pleasant letter from Frayn's old Cambridge philosophy tutor (who is profoundly and repeatedly acknowledged in the book), who commented that he'd eagerly read all the reviews he could find and regarded mine as the only one "that has put precise fingers on the two central defects of the work - its tackling far too much, and its being organised around a non-existent 'paradox'." FWIW. :) Damien Broderick ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:11:42 -0500 From: pjmanney Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn To: Message-ID: <19521893.236861172815902860.JavaMail.servlet at perfora> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Damien wrote: >I might as well add that after my piece appeared in an Australian >newspaper I got a very pleasant letter from Frayn's old Cambridge >philosophy tutor (who is profoundly and repeatedly acknowledged in >the book), who commented that he'd eagerly read all the reviews he >could find and regarded mine as the only one "that has put precise >fingers on the two central defects of the work - its tackling far too >much, and its being organised around a non-existent 'paradox'." FWIW. :) I LOVE that! (But if Frayn is in his seventies, then how old is his tutor and can I have some of whatever he's having!) PJ ------------------------------ Message: 21 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:39:05 -0600 From: Damien Broderick Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael Frayn To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070302003715.024feec0 at satx.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:11 AM 3/2/2007 -0500, PJ wrote: >(But if Frayn is in his seventies, then how old is his tutor and can >I have some of whatever he's having! Read about Jonathan Bennett and his remarkable work in making the philosophical classics intelligible to modern readers without dumbing them down at http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_jfb.html "Having retired from teaching in 1997, Jonathan Bennett now (2007) lives with his wife Gillian on Bowen Island, British Columbia, where he is much occupied with preparing more of these early modern philosophy texts." ------------------------------ Message: 22 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 23:03:16 -0500 (EST) From: Anna Taylor Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <299149.28706.qm at web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 --- Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >e.g. you don't remember being 40 when you are 20. It >is like imagining that you swap places with George >Bush: if you remember being you when you are him then >something interesting has happened, but if you >instantaneously swap over his body and mind for your >body and mind, then no-one will notice any >difference, and in fact it could have happened while >you read the last sentence. Memory plays a huge function between how many things one remembers as being a positive or negative "interesting things that happen". Do you have a philosophy as to why many people choose to keep in their memory all the negative "interesting things that happen" instead of the positive? >I probably shouldn't spoil a good story with >philosophy, but there is no difference between living >your life forward and living your life in reverse, >provided that each experience is exactly the same at >each moment in each case.. I enjoyed your example but i'm not really clear by what you mean. Could you explain? Thanks, just curious:) Anna __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 23 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:59:50 -0800 From: "Kevin Peterson" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The war on aging... To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Message-ID: <70c6596f0702282259i61fc59ecmd332efd624adf1fd at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Robert Bradbury wrote: > Some of you may have already seen the online petition for "Indefinite Life > Extension". > ... Are you kidding? You want the government involved in pursuing life extension research? First, it opens everything up to the whims of the electorate. Secondly, individual life extension is not in the best public policy interests of the country. Show me a petition that says "stay out of our way, let me engage in responsible germline human genetic engineering, and start modifying policy (such as social security) to be compatible with significantly extended lifespans" and I'll sign it. A "war on aging"? FDA declare aging a disease? This is not the Apollo program, it is far too long-term to be carried out by a democratic government. (It might be possible for a non-democratic government to carry out such a program, but you probably wouldn't want to live under such a government.) Personally, I don't see the emphasis on life extension. Life extension to the point of a healthy 100 years will be easily attainable within a few years of letting go of our qualms about the techniques. And by the time those who benefit from the first, easy steps in that direction get old, it'll be easier to just upload yourself. Kevin ------------------------------ Message: 24 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:43:10 -0500 From: citta437 at aol.com Subject: [extropy-chat] Why did the big bang happen? To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Message-ID: <8C929BA1A73F26B-16C8-2D74 at WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed "Why did the big bang happen? Where did this thought come from? Psychologically, it is a projection of a desire for satisfaction. In physics, the theory of the big bang is a working hypothesis for the time being until proven wrong by further scientific tests using a objective device besides critical thinking. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ------------------------------ Message: 25 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:38:56 -0500 From: citta437 at aol.com Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical and Positive Thinking To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Message-ID: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4 at WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Thank you to Extropy Institute for giving me an access to their site. As a student of Zen Buddhism, I found the philosophy or discipline of extropy similar to the practice of Zen which is a quest for truth. For instance, which comes first, critical or positive thinking? Its not that same question about the chicken or the egg issue. In Zen, first there's the mind{ in entropy}, then in the process of critical thinking, this entropic mind is gone and what remains is a positive process or an extropy of behavior/an organized growth with no end in sight. A Hindu might ask where did this entropic mind come from in the first place except from a god called Shiva? The historical Buddha did not reply. That silence can be a symbol of emptiness or the state of potentiality. Its like a natural cycle of the forces of nature in equilibrium where there is really no beginning nor end. The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there something rather than nothing? >From Terry's Column{Sungag/Zen Pursuer.org} ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ------------------------------ Message: 26 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:10:04 -0600 From: Damien Broderick Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760 at satx.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:38 AM 2/28/2007 -0500, someone wrote: >The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there >something rather than nothing? Good dog in heat, I get so tired of this fake question. What makes anyone suppose that "nothing" is the default physical or metaphysical condition, or even an intelligible construct? Nobody has ever seen "nothing", just the displacement of one something from here to there or even out of sight, leaving behind another something. Get over it. If the question is "why are there gradients rather than universal smoothness?" there are answers available. Damien Broderick ------------------------------ Message: 27 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 01:15:06 -0800 (PST) From: The Avantguardian Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Critical and Positive Thinking To: ExI chat list Message-ID: <616154.8085.qm at web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 --- citta437 at aol.com wrote: > The question remains in our universe of thoughts, > why is there > something rather than nothing? OM. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain _________________________________________________________________________ ___________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 ------------------------------ Message: 28 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:23:13 +1100 From: "Stathis Papaioannou" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On 3/2/07, Anna Taylor wrote: --- Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > >e.g. you don't remember being 40 when you are 20. It > >is like imagining that you swap places with George > >Bush: if you remember being you when you are him then > >something interesting has happened, but if you > >instantaneously swap over his body and mind for your > >body and mind, then no-one will notice any > >difference, and in fact it could have happened while > >you read the last sentence. > > Memory plays a huge function between how many things > one remembers as being a positive or negative > "interesting things that happen". Do you have a > philosophy as to why many people choose to keep in > their memory all the negative "interesting things that > happen" instead of the positive? It has partly to do with mood and personality. Depressed people tend to remember and ruminate about all the negative things, or view neutral or even positive things in a negative way. Cognitive behavioural therapy and antidepressant medication help to change this way of thinking. Manic people, on the other hand, are the opposite: they dismiss bad things and turn everything into a cause for optimism. Mood-stabilising and antipsychotic medication is the usual treatment for mania. >I probably shouldn't spoil a good story with > >philosophy, but there is no difference between living > >your life forward and living your life in reverse, > >provided that each experience is exactly the same at > >each moment in each case.. > > I enjoyed your example but i'm not really clear by > what you mean. Could you explain? Suppose all the moments of your life (your observer moments) could be seamlessly sliced up, so that their content remained the same but they could be shuffled like cards. This could actually happen if you were part of a computer simulation: the program could be stopped at any point, saved to memory, and restored at a later time or on another computer. The point is that you would have no way of knowing, without being provided with external information, when or for how long your program was stopped, how fast the computer clock was running, whether the observer moments were being run in sequence, what machines your program was being run on, or indeed any details about the substrate of your implementation. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070302/4119a7c5/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 29 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:48:04 +0100 From: Eugen Leitl Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Message-ID: <20070302104804.GO31912 at leitl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:23:13PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Suppose all the moments of your life (your observer moments) could be > seamlessly sliced up, so that their content remained the same but they > could be shuffled like cards. This could actually happen if you were But you would have to run the computation, to compute the sequence of trajectory frames before you can start reshuffling anything. > part of a computer simulation: the program could be stopped at any > point, saved to memory, and restored at a later time or on another > computer. The point is that you would have no way of knowing, without No problem, as long you have a last state to resume from, which continues the trajectory. > being provided with external information, when or for how long your > program was stopped, how fast the computer clock was running, whether > the observer moments were being run in sequence, what machines your How can you compute things out of sequence? The nearest analogon is hash Life (building a hash table of recursive light cones, using the fact that conformation distribution is very far from random, which allows very large speedups, at least on older sequential), and I'm not at all sure what this cause to in-world embedded observers (Life is an all-purpose computer). If you're a process, and you do some fancy nonlinear things in the trajectory computation, even though the target state is the same, I'm not buying the first-person observation is ok. > program was being run on, or indeed any details about the substrate of > your implementation. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070302/ed95c4a4/attachment-0001.bin ------------------------------ Message: 30 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:16:14 +1100 From: "Stathis Papaioannou" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Suppose there are two programs: program A is my life on 1st March 2007 and program B is my life on 2nd March 2007. Granted, the programmer needs to know all sorts of details about my past life before he can write the programs, and in particular he has to know what is going into program A before he can write program B, but we assume that he has done his job properly. Now here I am, and it's the 2nd of March by my calendar, so it must be program B that is running. I certainly remember yesterday as being the 1st of March, but does this give me any information at all as to whether program A was run yesterday, has not yet been run, is being run simultaneously on a separate machine or process, or any details at all about its implementation? Stathis Papaioannou On 3/2/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 09:23:13PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Suppose all the moments of your life (your observer moments) could be > > seamlessly sliced up, so that their content remained the same but > they > > could be shuffled like cards. This could actually happen if you were > > But you would have to run the computation, to compute the sequence > of trajectory frames before you can start reshuffling anything. > > > part of a computer simulation: the program could be stopped at any > > point, saved to memory, and restored at a later time or on another > > computer. The point is that you would have no way of knowing, without > > No problem, as long you have a last state to resume from, which > continues the trajectory. > > > being provided with external information, when or for how long your > > program was stopped, how fast the computer clock was running, whether > > the observer moments were being run in sequence, what machines your > > How can you compute things out of sequence? The nearest analogon is > hash Life (building a hash table of recursive light cones, using the > fact that conformation distribution is very far from random, which > allows very large speedups, at least on older sequential), and I'm > not at all sure what this cause to in-world embedded observers (Life > is an all-purpose computer). > > If you're a process, and you do some fancy nonlinear things in > the trajectory computation, even though the target state is the same, > I'm not buying the first-person observation is ok. > > > program was being run on, or indeed any details about the substrate > of > > your implementation. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFF6ADkdbAkQ4sp9r4RAlC7AKCRLB0Z3+9/q7BDGEEjN+zTEYCxlACeJrMQ > ttLOn51tcw1jL518Dgq3LJk= > =aAFG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070302/d74d2190/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 31 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:31:05 +0100 (MET) From: "Anders Sandberg" Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing To: "ExI chat list" Message-ID: <1107.163.1.72.81.1172838665.squirrel at webmail.csc.kth.se> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:38 AM 2/28/2007 -0500, someone wrote: >>The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there >>something rather than nothing? > > Good dog in heat, I get so tired of this fake question. What makes > anyone suppose that "nothing" is the default physical or metaphysical > condition, or even an intelligible construct? I often ponder why there is something rather than everything. My usual answer is the anthropic principle, but outside our neat little domain lies all the other Tegmark Level 4 possibilities. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 42, Issue 2 ******************************************* ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From citta437 at aol.com Fri Mar 2 14:50:11 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:50:11 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nihilism Message-ID: <8C92AF136C80689-15FC-7393@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> ""Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ______________ Hi, Stuart, I am one of Mark Twain's fan so to speak but the above quote sounds so unlike his wisdom/the understanding of the human behavior. Everyone suffers in this world due to such ignorance {nihilistic thought/beliefs}. When you harm yourself by your behavior, you and others suffer too. Terry's Column at Sungag.Buddhism.org ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From moses2k at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 20:26:21 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:26:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Metaphysical construct In-Reply-To: <8C92AF4C3174813-15FC-74EC@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92AF4C3174813-15FC-74EC@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <3aff9e290703021226m571dd4a1i2782253367bf4d3d@mail.gmail.com> On 3/2/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > > > Hi, this metaphysical construct arises from a hungry mind {a > philosophical mind} due to interactive processes, an exchange of > information. > > If Transhumanism is a philosophy, it is a thought bordering to a belief > of immortality/eternalism. I'm not saying that thought of immortality > is right or wrong. Humans feel a need and a Transhumanist thinks this > belief can fulfill that need if so then it can slide into > dogmatism/fanaticism. > > However if its not a religion, as some say, because it is open to > critical thinking and to scientific process of investigation why add > more thoughts or philosophy in its pursuit of immortality rather than > using the energy/funding to the advancement of science? > > REgards, > > Terry {Terry's Column in Zen Buddhism.org} > > > Speaking of dogmatism... -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 21:18:05 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:18:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Nihilism In-Reply-To: <8C92AF136C80689-15FC-7393@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <558643.15629.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- citta437 at aol.com wrote: > "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at > least I have always > so > regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting > with it, it is I who > suffers, > not the state." -Mark Twain > ______________ > > Hi, Stuart, I am one of Mark Twain's fan so to speak > but the above > quote sounds so unlike his wisdom/the understanding > of the human > behavior. Everyone suffers in this world due to such > ignorance > {nihilistic thought/beliefs}. When you harm yourself > by your behavior, > you and others suffer too. I am certainly not a nihilist, Terry, but if I see Mark Twain, I will pass it on. Incidently, suffering gets a bad rap from Buddhists in general. Without suffering there is little impetus for progress. It is the hungry that plant crops, the thirsty that dig wells, and the desirous that go to work and grow the economy. Without Samsara there could be no Dharma. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 21:33:01 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:33:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <000501c75cfe$8ea4c4c0$45921f97@archimede> Message-ID: <588058.48987.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- scerir wrote: > citta437: > > The question remains in our universe of thoughts, > > why is there something rather than nothing? > > Avantguardian: > > OM. > > Odyssey of the Mind? > Oh Man? Hi Seraphino, It was my answer to a self-professed Zen Buddhist's question about the meaning of existence. OM as in "Om mani padme hum" a Buddhist mantra. Which is the same OM that is also the first word in all of the Hindu Vedas and Upanishads. It is the sound form of the generative principle of the universe and the shortest answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" > > Anders: > > I often ponder why there is something > > rather than everything. Then next shortest explanation is that the big bang seems to demonstrate that *nothing* is incredibly unstable. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Fri Mar 2 23:22:13 2007 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 15:22:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] 2007 Tech Museum Awards Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070302181000.03dd7df0@igc.org> Message-ID: <20070302232213.57961.qmail@web32801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The Tech Museum Awards is currently seeking nominations for innovators from around the world who are using technology to benefit humanity. The Tech Awards is an international awards program honoring individuals and organizations that are applying technology to benefit humanity. Twenty-five Laureates will be honored at a Gala event in Silicon Valley, CA, and five Laureates will share a cash prize of $250,000 USD. The deadline for nominations is March 26, 2007. Nominations may be submitted online at www.techawards.org. Self nominations are accepted and encouraged. We invite you to forward this message to your network of contacts to encourage nominations from around the world. If you would like any further information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for helping us recognize innovators who are making the world a better place. Sincerely, The Tech Museum Awards Staff Tech Museum Awarding $250,000 in Cash Prizes Global Call For Nominations of Innovators Using Technology to Benefit Humanity Nomination Deadline: March 26, 2007 www.techawards.org The Tech Museum Awards is a unique and prestigious program that honors and awards innovators from around the world who use technology to benefit humanity in the categories of: Education Equality Economic Development Environment Health Reward those making a difference and nominate today. A simple nomination form can be found at www.techawards.org. Self-nominations are accepted and encouraged. Individuals, nonprofit organizations, and companies are all eligible. Program details, including judging criteria, can be found at The Tech Museum Awards website listed above. Each year, 25 Laureates are honored at a gala dinner, invited to participate in press and media coverage, and introduced to a network of influential advisors. An inspirational and unforgettable event, the black-tie celebration will be held at The Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose , California , on November 7, 2007 . One Laureate in each category will be granted a $50,000 cash prize. Gillian Caldwell of WITNESS, 2003 Laureate in the Knight Ridder Equality award category and cash prize recipient, called The Tech Museum Awards "...a truly remarkable program that has given WITNESS acclaim for using technology to document human rights abuses. I was deeply honored to be recognized along with 24 other innovators from around the world who are working to improve human life through technology. The exposure generated from receiving this award and the $50,000 cash prize will surely lead to expanded services, awareness, and improved solutions for ending violations of human rights." We encourage you to forward this email to any contacts you have that may be interested in nominating a candidate for this award. Thank you for your support. Tech Awards Partners & Sponsors PRESENTING SPONSOR IN ASSOCIATION WITH GLOBAL OUTREACH PARTNERS AWARD SPONSORS ENVIRONMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION HEALTH KATHERINE M. SWANSON EQUALITY AWARD The Swanson Foundation GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 23:57:01 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 10:57:01 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <62c14240703020720x777237d8y10d9d6226247101f@mail.gmail.com> References: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20070302104804.GO31912@leitl.org> <62c14240703020720x777237d8y10d9d6226247101f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: On 3/2/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Suppose there are two programs: program A is my life on 1st March 2007 > and > > program B is my life on 2nd March 2007. Granted, the programmer needs to > > know all sorts of details about my past life before he can write the > > programs, and in particular he has to know what is going into program A > > before he can write program B, but we assume that he has done his job > > properly. Now here I am, and it's the 2nd of March by my calendar, so it > > must be program B that is running. I certainly remember yesterday as > being > > the 1st of March, but does this give me any information at all as to > whether > > program A was run yesterday, has not yet been run, is being run > > simultaneously on a separate machine or process, or any details at all > about > > its implementation? > > Suppose your life/program is represented as a high dimension manifold, > then it would be possible to compute a given moment by selecting a > point this object's the surface. The memory/state information would > be relative to that point, but not necessarily require iterative > calculation. > > I've thought about this using the frames of a film - each 1/24 of a > second contains stateful information about it's placement in the > sequence. For a movie you know well enough, you could probably > resequence a random pile of film clips from these clues (within some > threshold of accuracy: 1/24 of a second doesn't allow a great deal of > variation from frame to frame) There is a crucial difference between an external observer resequencing and an internal observer resequencing. The external observer could do it but it would take a lot of knowledge and effort, and as you suggest the smaller the time slices the less difference between them and the more difficult to place them in order. The internal observer, on the other hand, does not have this problem. No matter how small the time slices and how thoroughly shuffled, subjectively OM2 cannot help but feel that it follows OM1 and precedes OM3. One very thorough way of doing the shuffling is to have a computer generate all programs via a Universal Dovetailer. If the computer runs long enough, it will generate OM1, OM2 and OM3 and even though this is completely useless for an external observer - they are hidden in the background randomness - the internal observer will still experience OM1, OM2, OM3 occurring as if arising in what we consider the usual manner. One complication is that the UD will generate not only OM1, OM2, OM3 but every possible variation. Thus OM1 could experience as next moment OM2.1, OM2.2, OM2.3... each of which will have a distinct measure, or subjective probability. The effect of this is that although the UD is perfectly deterministic from the point of view of an external observer, from the point of view of the internal observer his future is indeterminate. In form, this matches the branchings in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 00:21:17 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 11:21:17 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Nihilism In-Reply-To: <8C92AF136C80689-15FC-7393@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92AF136C80689-15FC-7393@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: > ""Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always > so > regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who > suffers, > not the state." -Mark Twain > ______________ > > Hi, Stuart, I am one of Mark Twain's fan so to speak but the above > quote sounds so unlike his wisdom/the understanding of the human > behavior. Everyone suffers in this world due to such ignorance > {nihilistic thought/beliefs}. When you harm yourself by your behavior, > you and others suffer too. The quote addresses the question of whether the state should legislate against, for example, drug abuse. There is perhaps a role for this if the behaviour directly harms others, e.g. if someone is intoxicated and driving or in charge of children, but not otherwise. This does not mean there is nothing wrong with harming yourself, just that the state should keep its nose out of your private business. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 3 01:21:23 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:21:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] About the Evolution of Vision, Cognition and Knowledge In-Reply-To: References: <8C92AF136C80689-15FC-7393@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: According to traditional (non-evolutionary) empiricists like Locke and Hume, the mind plays no active role in perception. Instead the objects of our awareness act on our senses and then the mind steps in to actively interpret those perceptions. This would seem to be a reasonable view, but does it conflict with evolution theory? I think so. Traditional empiricists find themselves in a quagmire when they try to trace sensory awareness back through the path of evolution. The concept of sense awareness breaks down at lower organisms, for example at the level of the microbe. Primitive animals like the amoeba and the paramecium seem 'aware,' but what is the nature of this awareness? These animals have no nervous systems and no obvious sense organs. One species of paramecia uses a plant (chlorella) to 'see'. The animal swallows the plant but holds it live as a hostage in its cytoplasm, using the chemical by-products of its photosynthesis as an 'eye.' The animal uses the plant to find more light and more food. Is this a primitive form of vision? If not then why not? After all the animal is able to detect light and act upon it. Isn't this what we mean by vision? If by vision we mean something like the ability to experience light then the answer seems to be no. It is doubtful that amoebas have anything like what we might call experience of any kind. A distinction seems necessary here between experience and cognition. Although amoebas probably have no experience, they do seem capable of a primitive type of cognition. Traditional empiricist doctrine holds that knowledge of the world arises from sense experience. But here we have an organism that seems to acquire knowledge of its environment separate from any sense experience. Traditional empiricism seems mistaken here, at least at some levels outside the realm of human experience. Cognition seems also to be fundamentally active. The normal, visually blind paramecium bounces about almost randomly in its environment in search of food. Although this primitive trial-and-error searching has no obvious direction, it is nevertheless an active goal-driven process. This active but random locomotion is, I think, a primitive method of cognition. That sense which we call vision is, I believe, an evolutionary descendant of random locomotion. Human eyes on this view are analogous to radar towers, active organs that search the environment and report information back to headquarters. Their most basic purpose is to save us physical steps. Unlike the blind paramecium we needn't bounce into walls to know the walls exist. Also it seems no coincidence that we see only a very narrow band of electromagnetic radiation. Most objects that reflect electromagnetic radiation in the visual light band are also impenetrable. That impenetrability is useful knowledge to any organism. Until very recently (on the evolutionary time-scale) it was not very useful to know about penetrable objects. Our use of visual light may also have its origin in light-as-food: i.e., photosynthesis. Probably it is no coincidence that our eyes use the pigment retinol. This pigment requires nutrition found mainly in plants, or in certain organs of animals that eat plants. The pigment allows for color vision. Why do humans need plants to see? This dependency of humans on plants may be due to a common ancestor of plants and animals, one that used beta-carotene, a precursor to both human retinol and plant chlorophyll. It seems that in our branch of evolution, we lost the ability to eat light but retained the ability to detect it. Light detection is perhaps the most basic example of knowledge acquisition. This knowledge starts with biological knowledge in plants and animals, but extends to intellectual human knowledge. Vision and all more advanced forms of cognition can be understood as more efficient substitutes for primitive trial-and-error random locomotion, including even the process of forming abstract theories about the world. All evolution, from the physical and biological to the mental and cultural, can then be seen as a single contiguous process involving the growth of knowledge. -gts From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Mar 3 02:59:57 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:59:57 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical and Positive Thinking In-Reply-To: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200703030310.l233AfDi009532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of citta437 at aol.com ... > Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical and Positive Thinking ... > As a student of Zen Buddhism, I found the philosophy or discipline of > extropy similar to the practice of Zen which is a quest for truth. ... > The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there > something rather than nothing? A still more fundamental question: how do we know there really is something? Can it be proven? And why do zen masters speak slowly and distinctly like Master Po? It's really hard to imagine a fast talking auctioneer spewing koans rapid fire. Welcome, citta437. {8-] spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Mar 3 05:13:42 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:13:42 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <1107.163.1.72.81.1172838665.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> <1107.163.1.72.81.1172838665.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070302231257.02589ec0@satx.rr.com> At 01:31 PM 3/2/2007 +0100, Anders wrote, dazzlingly: >I often ponder why there is something rather than everything. Lambda + c. Damien Broderick From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 05:20:33 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 00:20:33 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20070302104804.GO31912@leitl.org> <62c14240703020720x777237d8y10d9d6226247101f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240703022120y42848c84o2df8ac97a1cf58f2@mail.gmail.com> On 3/2/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > One very thorough way of doing the shuffling is to have a computer generate > all programs via a Universal Dovetailer. If the computer runs long enough, > it will generate OM1, OM2 and OM3 and even though this is completely useless > for an external observer - they are hidden in the background randomness - > the internal observer will still experience OM1, OM2, OM3 occurring as if > arising in what we consider the usual manner. > > One complication is that the UD will generate not only OM1, OM2, OM3 but > every possible variation. Thus OM1 could experience as next moment OM2.1, > OM2.2, OM2.3... each of which will have a distinct measure, or subjective > probability. The effect of this is that although the UD is perfectly > deterministic from the point of view of an external observer, from the point > of view of the internal observer his future is indeterminate. In form, this > matches the branchings in the many worlds interpretation of quantum > mechanics. every possible > every probability : especially within the limits of some optimization to reduce complexity in order to fit the capability of the UD. Sure, a purist might want to encode every possible state, but for the sake of project deadlines, it's usually more common to 80/20 and see if you can get away with it. (or if you 80/(80/20) - it's usually acceptable to discount the 4%) From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 05:35:17 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 16:35:17 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <62c14240703022120y42848c84o2df8ac97a1cf58f2@mail.gmail.com> References: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20070302104804.GO31912@leitl.org> <62c14240703020720x777237d8y10d9d6226247101f@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703022120y42848c84o2df8ac97a1cf58f2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: On 3/2/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > One very thorough way of doing the shuffling is to have a computer > generate > > all programs via a Universal Dovetailer. If the computer runs long > enough, > > it will generate OM1, OM2 and OM3 and even though this is completely > useless > > for an external observer - they are hidden in the background randomness > - > > the internal observer will still experience OM1, OM2, OM3 occurring as > if > > arising in what we consider the usual manner. > > > > One complication is that the UD will generate not only OM1, OM2, OM3 but > > every possible variation. Thus OM1 could experience as next moment OM2.1 > , > > OM2.2, OM2.3... each of which will have a distinct measure, or > subjective > > probability. The effect of this is that although the UD is perfectly > > deterministic from the point of view of an external observer, from the > point > > of view of the internal observer his future is indeterminate. In form, > this > > matches the branchings in the many worlds interpretation of quantum > > mechanics. > > every possible > every probability : especially within the limits of > some optimization to reduce complexity in order to fit the capability > of the UD. > > Sure, a purist might want to encode every possible state, but for the > sake of project deadlines, it's usually more common to 80/20 and see > if you can get away with it. (or if you 80/(80/20) - it's usually > acceptable to discount the 4%) You probably wouldn't bother with a UD unless you had an infinite computer, such as in Freeman Dyson's or Frank Tipler's scenarios. If you did, then you could allocate the UD one clock cycle every zillion years and that's all you would need. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nanogirl at halcyon.com Sat Mar 3 05:59:24 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 21:59:24 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gift References: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20070302104804.GO31912@leitl.org><62c14240703020720x777237d8y10d9d6226247101f@mail.gmail.com><62c14240703022120y42848c84o2df8ac97a1cf58f2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00d101c75d59$323ab810$0200a8c0@Nano> Hello! I just finished working on this animation today. I had to call and get my Mom's reaction, I was so glad I did. It touched her, and that was a gift, it touched me too to make this animation, another gift. And so I pass it on to you in hopes that it gives to you as well. Here is the link: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/thegift.htm Gina "Nanogirl" Miller Nanotechnology Industries http://www.nanoindustries.com Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html 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 pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 11:57:43 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 11:57:43 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Critical and Positive Thinking In-Reply-To: <200703030310.l233AfDi009532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> <200703030310.l233AfDi009532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, spike wrote: > A still more fundamental question: how do we know there really is something? > Can it be proven? And why do zen masters speak slowly and distinctly like > Master Po? It's really hard to imagine a fast talking auctioneer spewing > koans rapid fire. > This reminds me of the Solipsism warning printed on products. The consumer should be aware that he or she may be the only entity in the universe, and therefore that any perceived defects in product quality are the consumer's own fault. BillK From brent.allsop at comcast.net Sat Mar 3 16:56:43 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 09:56:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Gift In-Reply-To: <00d101c75d59$323ab810$0200a8c0@Nano> References: <299149.28706.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com><20070302104804.GO31912@leitl.org><62c14240703020720x777237d8y10d9d6226247101f@mail.gmail.com><62c14240703022120y42848c84o2df8ac97a1cf58f2@mail.gmail.com> <00d101c75d59$323ab810$0200a8c0@Nano> Message-ID: <45E9A8CB.5010405@comcast.net> Gina, That was wonderful! Thanks for sharing it! Brent Allsop Gina Miller wrote: > Hello! I just finished working on this animation today. I had to call > and get my Mom's reaction, I was so glad I did. It touched her, and > that was a gift, it touched me too to make this animation, another > gift. And so I pass it on to you in hopes that it gives to you as well. > Here is the link: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/thegift.htm > > > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller > Nanotechnology Industries > http://www.nanoindustries.com > Personal: http://www.nanogirl.com/index2.html > 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." > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From citta437 at aol.com Sat Mar 3 16:30:29 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:30:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychological stress and Suffering Message-ID: <8C92BC8643E71C8-518-9ADD@webmail-de07.sysops.aol.com> As a student of Zen, I agree with Stuart's assessment of suffering/samsara is itself Dharma/reality. However I don't know of any Buddhist school that teaches otherwise. All I know is that suffering as psychological stress is universal in sensient beings capable of thinking and feeling in various degrees. Some Buddhist psychologists merged the study of mind/consciousness with Buddhist's practice of awareness as in meditation. Zen addresses this as an effective tool for relaxing the mind from entropic thoughts to see reality/extropy imho. If extropic reality is a process of growth to relieve mankind's suffering then that parallels the goal of Buddhism towards liberation from suffering. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 18:37:05 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:37:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... Message-ID: Well, well, well, it looks like I get the tidy "hot news that should have been on the list that wasn't" award for this month. It looks like the long anticipated "Engines of Creation 2.0" is out. URL: http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?bookid=503 I have not read it, so don't ask me to comment. But at 646 pages it comes in at 6 pages less than TSIN. I am not sure if one can buy a cellulose copy of this (it doesn't come up on Amazon). So now for all of those naysayers out there (oh, lets see, the names Eugen and Rafal come to mind) may be "on task" to explain why not. Also of interest with people following nanotechnology it will be interesting with such a page count the extent to which Eric may be raking critics over the coals. (drama in the nanotech world....) So now, if I can manage to get a printed copy. I can whack nanotechnology luddites over the coals in the left side of their heads with TSIN and the right hand side of their heads with EoC2.0. And then maybe on the top of their heads with NM VI. And if I unfortunately I can only get an electronic copy of EOC2.0. well the laptop with its downloaded contents will do as a good substitute for a printed copy. The problem (maybe) with an international list where people have grown up in other countries may be the perspective of "cannot' rather than "can". I would like to hope that we (as rational engines) want the numbers on the table to say we "can" before we say "can't". Spike didn't ever say they could not set a lander down on Pluto. He did say it would be very very hard. And I proposed ways out of the box. The naysayers do *not* have the numbers on the table which would assert that a complete nanoechnology enabled reality is not possible in 30 years, or 20 years or 10 years. If you cannot assert that it is impossible, then why should I stop trying to make the "impossible" happen? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 18:54:08 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:54:08 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... Message-ID: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> 12:45 Saturday, 3 March 2007 Drexler's book also sits at the top of WOWIO's download list, beating out Sun Tzu, Hawking, Hayek, Wells, and Pickover. > their heads with NM VI. And if I unfortunately I can only get an electronic > copy of EOC2.0. well the laptop with its downloaded contents will do as a > good substitute for a printed copy. > As an aside, what do people have against reading from a screen? Old habits take effort to break, screens have higher power consumption and lower resolution, etc. I understand all that. Do people really print out hard copies from electronic source? And just in case you missed it, you can read Wolfram's "A New Kind Of Science" on-line. http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html (tagged in my del.icio.us bookmarks 23 Jun 05) What other books worth reading exist on-line? Speak up! Contribute to the thread, and I'll bookmark and tag them all. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 18:58:09 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:58:09 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] BOOKS On-line, was Re: Boks On-line Message-ID: <5366105b0703031058v574e8fcr1cf5707fb52e1b99@mail.gmail.com> 12:57 Saturday, 3 March 2007 How embarrassing. Good to know Gmail doesn't spell check subject lines, though. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 19:26:21 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:26:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychological stress and Suffering In-Reply-To: <8C92BC8643E71C8-518-9ADD@webmail-de07.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92BC8643E71C8-518-9ADD@webmail-de07.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, citta437 at aol.com wrote: As a side note I would welcome all students of Zen and/or Buddism to this list. You have an expertise in the nature of consciousness which may differ from the more classic (western) exploration and I at least (for one) happen to believe that the exchange of such knowledge bases may be very useful. (And before the diehard westerner's come after me I would note that Buddism is an operational framework which has survived for several thousand years). Humans have to choose paths, the paths which work are clearly evident on the globe. If the path didn't work it probably isn't here. The critical question is how to create paths which will work in the future which do may not work now.) If extropic reality is a process of growth to relieve mankind's > suffering then that parallels the goal of Buddhism towards liberation > from suffering. So let us perhaps separate the concepts. There is no question in an extropians mind (at least generally speaking) that robust nanotechnology can completely eliminate "human suffering"). So from an extropian philosophical perspective there is "no human suffering" other than that which is self-inflicted. Would you hazard a guess at to how Buddihst philopsopy may evolve if "human suffering" is no longer of concern. Regards, Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Mar 3 19:45:28 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 11:45:28 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > > their heads with NM VI. And if I unfortunately I can only get an electronic > > copy of EOC2.0. well the laptop with its downloaded contents will do as a > > good substitute for a printed copy. Hmm, I was alerted to EOC2.0 several weeks ago, on this list, I thought, but now I can't find the reference. I find electronic versions of books to be far preferable to paper copies, and I routinely cut and scan any paper books I acquire. So much easier to search, annotate and archive, and so much easier to read in bed or when on the go. I'm in the process of moving my collection of several hundred books from my personal network storage onto Amazon S3 this weekend for greater accessibility and backup reliability. Speaking of S3, I am extremely happy with Amazon's S3 and EC2 as enabling technologies for scalable small businesses. I read and enjoyed _Breakpoint_ by Richard A. Clarke just this week. The writing is only moderately good, but the content is extremely relevant and transhumanism is mentioned seriously and favorably. Highly recommended as a book to read and then give to someone who would benefit from exposure to transhumanist ideas. - Jef > > > As an aside, what do people have against reading from a screen? Old > habits take effort to break, screens have higher power consumption and > lower resolution, etc. I understand all that. Do people really print > out hard copies from electronic source? > > And just in case you missed it, you can read Wolfram's "A New Kind Of > Science" on-line. > > http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html > > (tagged in my del.icio.us bookmarks 23 Jun 05) > > > What other books worth reading exist on-line? Speak up! Contribute to > the thread, and I'll bookmark and tag them all. > > -- > Jay Dugger > http://jaydugger.suprglu.com > Sometimes the delete key serves best. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Mar 3 19:57:49 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 11:57:49 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Here's the correct TinyURL for the book at Amazon: - Jef > I read and enjoyed _Breakpoint_ by Richard A. Clarke just this week. > > The writing is only moderately good, but the content is extremely > relevant and transhumanism is mentioned seriously and favorably. > Highly recommended as a book to read and then give to someone who > would benefit from exposure to transhumanist ideas. > > - Jef > > > > > > > > > > > > > As an aside, what do people have against reading from a screen? Old > > habits take effort to break, screens have higher power consumption and > > lower resolution, etc. I understand all that. Do people really print > > out hard copies from electronic source? > > > > And just in case you missed it, you can read Wolfram's "A New Kind Of > > Science" on-line. > > > > http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html > > > > (tagged in my del.icio.us bookmarks 23 Jun 05) > > > > > > What other books worth reading exist on-line? Speak up! Contribute to > > the thread, and I'll bookmark and tag them all. > > > > -- > > Jay Dugger > > http://jaydugger.suprglu.com > > Sometimes the delete key serves best. > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 20:16:39 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:16:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0703031216o15ad1b22idcb697239782dec3@mail.gmail.com> 14:09 Saturday, 3 March 2007 J.A.: On 3/3/07, Jef Allbright wrote: [snip] > I find electronic versions of books to be far preferable to paper > copies, and I routinely cut and scan any paper books I acquire. So (Hear hear! scanning takes a lot of work, though. I do this myself, and I've worn out three scanners. My employer has a very nice high-speed scanner, but I can only use it for business purposes.) > much easier to search, annotate and archive, and so much easier to > read in bed or when on the go. I'm in the process of moving my Ha! try traveling three days out of four. That broke me, cured me rather, of my love for hard copy. The advantage of always carrying a book with me came as a nice side benefit of lighter luggage. > collection of several hundred books from my personal network storage > onto Amazon S3 this weekend for greater accessibility and backup > reliability. > > Speaking of S3, I am extremely happy with Amazon's S3 and EC2 as > enabling technologies for scalable small businesses. > I find this project of yours extremely interesting. (I consider doing the same thing.) Have you written a blog post of any sort on this project, or otherwise documented it online? -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 20:21:23 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 20:21:23 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Hmm, I was alerted to EOC2.0 several weeks ago, on this list, I > thought, but now I can't find the reference. > It was announced in the KurzweilAI.net Daily Newsletter of Feb 9, 2007. I didn't mention it onlist as I assumed everyone would already be getting this newsletter. :) Subscribe here: Engines of Creation 2.0 (a WOWIO e-book). This 20th anniversary edition combines the original text of Engines of Creation with a collection of background readings and a new Letter from the Author. In addition to an updated "look and feel" for the ebook, Engines of Creation 2.0 has been expanded to include the first known lecture on nanotechnology by physicist Richard Feynman, the landmark open letter debate between Dr. Drexler and the late nanotech pioneer and Nobel laureate Dr. Richard Smalley, analysis of the debate by Ray Kurzweil, and a number of new additions by Dr. Drexler, including his advice to aspiring nanotechnologists. --------------------------- Download here: BillK From eugen at leitl.org Sat Mar 3 20:24:10 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:24:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:37:05PM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > Well, well, well, it looks like I get the tidy "hot news that should > have been on the list that wasn't" award for this month. > It looks like the long anticipated "Engines of Creation 2.0" is out. > URL: [1]http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?bookid=503 I have no idea why they "need to confirm my identity" for a free download. I guess no EoC2 for me, then. (I thought EoC was a Nanosystems for pedestrians, so I never bothered with it. Is EoC2 any different?). Anyone read it? Any good? Any kind pirate (ARRRR! Shiver me timbers!) can send me a copy? > I have not read it, so don't ask me to comment. But at 646 pages it > comes in at 6 pages less than TSIN. I am not sure if one can buy a "Spikes" has 394 pages, and "Biophysics of Computation" 562, "The Synapse" 249, "Computational Modeling of Genetic and Biochemical Networks" 336, "Neurobiology" 760, "Methods in Neuronal Modeling" 671, "The Student's Guide to Cognitive Neuroscience" 403, and I need to have read all of them in two months. > cellulose copy of this (it doesn't come up on Amazon). So now for all > of those naysayers out there (oh, lets see, the names Eugen and Rafal What? Naysayer? Me? Nah... You must be thinking of somebody else... > come to mind) may be "on task" to explain why not. I have no idea what that book is not available as a dead tree version. I have no idea why I have to explain *that*, I am completely innocent. I would have released it under some digital commie (copyleft, etc) license, but I guess that wasn't possible for some mumble legal reasons. > Also of interest with people following nanotechnology it will be > interesting with such a page count the extent to which Eric may be > raking critics over the coals. (drama in the nanotech world....) > So now, if I can manage to get a printed copy. I can whack > nanotechnology luddites over the coals in the left side of their heads > with TSIN and the right hand side of their heads with EoC2.0. And TSIN? What's that? > then maybe on the top of their heads with NM VI. And if I > unfortunately I can only get an electronic copy of EOC2.0. well the > laptop with its downloaded contents will do as a good substitute for a > printed copy. > The problem (maybe) with an international list where people have grown > up in other countries may be the perspective of "cannot' rather than > "can". I would like to hope that we (as rational engines) want the > numbers on the table to say we "can" before we say "can't". Spike > didn't ever say they could not set a lander down on Pluto. He did say This is the most cryptic post you probably ever did. How very unexpected of you. > it would be very very hard. And I proposed ways out of the box. > The naysayers do *not* have the numbers on the table which would > assert that a complete nanoechnology enabled reality is not possible > in 30 years, or 20 years or 10 years. I'm aware of precisely one (1) person of the extropians who's actually busting his chops, trying to make machine-phase happen. Since I typically miss about 90% of what is going on, I would like to see who else is working in molecular nanotechnology. Working as in, studying currently, or doing R&D in the lab, whether government, academia or industry. > If you cannot assert that it is impossible, then why should I stop > trying to make the "impossible" happen? You shouldn't stop trying, of couse. I would in fact very much like to know what exactly you've been up lately. Something quite beyond drawing widgets in Nanoengineer-1, from the sound of it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Mar 3 20:42:57 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:42:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070303204257.GN31912@leitl.org> On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:45:28AM -0800, Jef Allbright wrote: > I find electronic versions of books to be far preferable to paper > copies, and I routinely cut and scan any paper books I acquire. So It depends on your reader. The current displays, especially in mobiles, are not up to snuff. It can't be that hard to build a tough waterproofed version of a WiFi tablet for a VAIO-quality display for a 1-2 k$, or so. One should think. I've tried the iBook, but even with the two-finger scroll it's not fun. I need a lot of display real estate, which is not available in a comfortable position. Books are for trains, beds and bathtubs. I've tried scanning a few books, but the speed, the quality of the scan and of the OCR left much to be desired. I think with a device such as http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/09/scanner_for_books.html it would be less painful. > much easier to search, annotate and archive, and so much easier to > read in bed or when on the go. I'm in the process of moving my > collection of several hundred books from my personal network storage > onto Amazon S3 this weekend for greater accessibility and backup > reliability. Open formats? > Speaking of S3, I am extremely happy with Amazon's S3 and EC2 as > enabling technologies for scalable small businesses. The key word here is scalable, otherwise I would find them reasonably pricey. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Mar 3 20:48:14 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:48:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> References: <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:37:05PM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > Well, well, well, it looks like I get the tidy "hot news that should > > have been on the list that wasn't" award for this month. > > It looks like the long anticipated "Engines of Creation 2.0" is out. > > URL: [1]http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?bookid=503 > > I have no idea why they "need to confirm my identity" for a free > download. I guess no EoC2 for me, then. (I thought EoC was > a Nanosystems for pedestrians, so I never bothered with it. > Is EoC2 any different?). Anyone read it? Any good? You might try http://media.jefallbright.net/books/EnginesofCreation.pdf until I get the security locked down tomorrow. - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Sat Mar 3 20:38:46 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:38:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200703032051.l23KpDKQ003223@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bradbury ... >? Spike didn't ever say they could not set a lander down on Pluto.? He did say it would be very very hard.? And I proposed ways out of the box...Robert Ja and even that is an overstatement sorta. A Pluto lander can be done with fairly straightforward traditional technology so long as we don't start piling on a bunch of incompatible requirements. For instance, if we are patient enough to wait 50 to 60 years for the one way trip, or if we are content with a lander that has the mass of a baseball and cannot do much when it arrives (such as phoning home) or if we have many billions of dollars to buy multiple launchers, or we can distract the no-nukes people while we launch a bunch of nuclear fuel. The real issue with this kind of mission is that we want to do it faster, better, cheaper. To land on Pluto you only get to pick one of those three. spike From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 20:53:38 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:53:38 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <20070303204257.GN31912@leitl.org> References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> <20070303204257.GN31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5366105b0703031253k4c28bbdfm60f9abd7fccd9a09@mail.gmail.com> On 3/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:45:28AM -0800, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > I find electronic versions of books to be far preferable to paper > > copies, and I routinely cut and scan any paper books I acquire. So > > It depends on your reader. The current displays, especially in mobiles, > are not up to snuff. It can't be that hard to build a tough waterproofed > version of a WiFi tablet for a VAIO-quality display for a 1-2 k$, or so. > One should think. I've tried the iBook, but even with the two-finger > scroll it's not fun. I need a lot of display real estate, which is not > available in a comfortable position. Books are for trains, beds and bathtubs. > Buy a used laptop for $300. Install the Linux distribution de jour for (hours taken*($/hour)). I consider WiFi optional; YMMV. > I've tried scanning a few books, but the speed, the quality of the > scan and of the OCR left much to be desired. I think with a device such as > http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/09/scanner_for_books.html > it would be less painful. > I have a brand new Plustek Optic Book 3600 on my right. Boing boing pretty well describes it, but they omit any mention of its remarkably ugly scanner interface. The word "eyesore" fails to capture its awful hideousness. It looks as if the UI designer might have been a kindergartner on LSD, and the approval committee their indulgent, half-blind grandparents. > > much easier to search, annotate and archive, and so much easier to > > read in bed or when on the go. I'm in the process of moving my > > collection of several hundred books from my personal network storage > > onto Amazon S3 this weekend for greater accessibility and backup > > reliability. > > Open formats? > ASCII? -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Mar 3 19:20:46 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 11:20:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychological stress and Suffering In-Reply-To: <8C92BC8643E71C8-518-9ADD@webmail-de07.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92BC8643E71C8-518-9ADD@webmail-de07.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: citta437 wrote: > As a student of Zen, I agree with Stuart's assessment of > suffering/samsara is itself Dharma/reality. However I don't know of any > Buddhist school that teaches otherwise. All I know is that suffering as > psychological stress is universal in sensient beings capable of > thinking and feeling in various degrees. > > Some Buddhist psychologists merged the study of mind/consciousness with > Buddhist's practice of awareness as in meditation. > Zen addresses this as an effective tool for relaxing the mind from > entropic thoughts to see reality/extropy imho. > > If extropic reality is a process of growth to relieve mankind's > suffering then that parallels the goal of Buddhism towards liberation > from suffering. citta437 (if I may be permitted to call you citta437), I would like to welcome you to the list! I studied Zen Buddhism intensely for several years and at first it seemed to be a very effective complement to my scientific world-view. But eventually the two frames of thought became integrated in my mind, providing a great deal of clarity about the relationship of the subjective and the objective. I would like to ask your opinion on the issue of universal suffering with regard to extropic thinking: In my opinion, the Buddhist concept of the universal suffering of all sentient entities is useful, but it is a concept framed within a traditional paradigm of scarcity, and as such it is seen to offer escape from an unpleasant state of being. However, upon gaining an aware acceptance of self as/within nature, one finds that there is no objective suffering, nor is there any objective self who can suffer. From this perspective of aware acceptance, one can choose most freely. It seems to me that at this point the traditional Buddhist view, or common expectation, is that one would freely and naturally choose a state of peaceful and harmonious, but essentially static existence. I am aware of course of the Zen Buddhist warrior, at peace within his fighting art, but I don't see this as an exception. Again the implicit aim is one of harmonious flow, rather than intentional striving. II would suggest that this traditional Buddhist conception is framed within a world-view that did not include today's knowledge of adaptive dynamical systems nor the dynamics of co-evolutionary ecologies. In contrast, extropian thinking recognizes that striving for ongoing growth is essential and intrinsic to survival of any entity in the bigger picture. Now one could easily respond that striving for growth may certainly be conducted with a zen-mind, and I would agree, but would refer back to my point that this would be commonly seen as an exception rather than a preferred new "standard" among most Buddhists. Comments? - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Mar 3 20:35:58 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:35:58 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <5366105b0703031216o15ad1b22idcb697239782dec3@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0703031216o15ad1b22idcb697239782dec3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > I find this project of yours extremely interesting. (I consider doing > the same thing.) Have you written a blog post of any sort on this > project, or otherwise documented it online? Documentation? Documentation? We don't need no steeenking documentation. Actually, being a true engineer at heart, I confess I'm behind on my documentation. Contact me offlist if you have questions about S3/EC2/SQS and I'll be happy to share what I know. - Jef From jay.dugger at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 21:08:39 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:08:39 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> <5366105b0703031216o15ad1b22idcb697239782dec3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0703031308x3ddaa92ck38e91f3d2e2ad2ce@mail.gmail.com> 15:06 Saturday, 3 March 2007 On 3/3/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 3/3/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > > > I find this project of yours extremely interesting. (I consider doing > > the same thing.) Have you written a blog post of any sort on this > > project, or otherwise documented it online? > > > Documentation? Documentation? We don't need no steeenking documentation. > > Actually, being a true engineer at heart, I confess I'm behind on my > documentation. Being a technical writer by inclination (and in fact from time to time at my employer) I understand well. Can you hear the thumping sound of my head hitting the wall? :-) > > Contact me offlist if you have questions about S3/EC2/SQS and I'll be > happy to share what I know. > Thank you, Jef. Let me do a little research of my own first. No need to pester you with questions I might have answered with a little RTFM. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From eugen at leitl.org Sat Mar 3 21:11:06 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 22:11:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <5366105b0703031253k4c28bbdfm60f9abd7fccd9a09@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> <20070303204257.GN31912@leitl.org> <5366105b0703031253k4c28bbdfm60f9abd7fccd9a09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070303211106.GT31912@leitl.org> On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:53:38PM -0600, Jay Dugger wrote: > Buy a used laptop for $300. Install the Linux distribution de jour for > (hours taken*($/hour)). I consider WiFi optional; YMMV. Hello? I have an iBook. It's not good enough. I need a ruggedized A4 tablet with a display roughly like Sony VAIO (yes, the LED-backlit one, except A4, not postage stamp sized). > I have a brand new Plustek Optic Book 3600 on my right. Boing boing > pretty well describes it, but they omit any mention of its remarkably > ugly scanner interface. The word "eyesore" fails to capture its awful > hideousness. It looks as if the UI designer might have been a > kindergartner on LSD, and the approval committee their indulgent, > half-blind grandparents. That sounds reasonably damning, but does this work at all? You're supposed to use an OCR engine anyway, so whatever they ship the thing with will be just about quality of the drivers. It's not a cheap scanner, as such things go, so I really wonder whether it's worth it. > ASCII? I understand some still have this touching belief that .pdf password protection actually works. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat Mar 3 21:13:33 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:13:33 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <20070303204257.GN31912@leitl.org> References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> <20070303204257.GN31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:45:28AM -0800, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I find electronic versions of books to be far preferable to paper > > copies, and I routinely cut and scan any paper books I acquire. So > > It depends on your reader. The current displays, especially in mobiles, > are not up to snuff. It can't be that hard to build a tough waterproofed > version of a WiFi tablet for a VAIO-quality display for a 1-2 k$, or so. > One should think. I've tried the iBook, but even with the two-finger > scroll it's not fun. I need a lot of display real estate, which is not > available in a comfortable position. Books are for trains, beds and bathtubs. On my VAIO Tx750 it's just fine as PDF. On my Palm T3 it's quite acceptable as RTF or plain text. 1GB on the Palm means a nice collection of reading and reference material wherever I go. The scanning IS a lot of manual work, since I'm back to using my personal HP scanner with sheet feeder. Note that I almost always cut and feed the pages, rather than do page flipping one or two pages at a time. OCR is usually good enough that I don't have to do spelling corrections. > Open formats? Well kinda open, as in PDF. > > Speaking of S3, I am extremely happy with Amazon's S3 and EC2 as > > enabling technologies for scalable small businesses. > > The key word here is scalable, otherwise I would find them reasonably > pricey. Yup. The really nice thing is I can add or shut down servers very quickly as needed. - Jef From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 21:59:22 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 16:59:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <200703032051.l23KpDKQ003223@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200703032051.l23KpDKQ003223@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, spike wrote: > The real issue with this kind of mission is that we want to do it faster, > better, cheaper. To land on Pluto you only get to pick one of those > three. Spike, I think you hit two out of three. Faster and cheaper being the problematic criteria. Did we have to go to Pluto "now"? And if so why? And was there a cost analysis done looking at the cost of sending a probe to Pluto now, vs. in say 5, 10, 15, or even 50 years when we might have technologies such as space elevators, real nanotech, etc. I doubt it. Because you folks are in the business of building real things that work today -- not in the business of asking "is this really the best use of your resources?". For the sake of "faster" and "cheaper" I would offer the opinion that you had to sacrifice "better". Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 22:22:17 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:22:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <20070303211106.GT31912@leitl.org> References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> <20070303204257.GN31912@leitl.org> <5366105b0703031253k4c28bbdfm60f9abd7fccd9a09@mail.gmail.com> <20070303211106.GT31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > Hello? I have an iBook. It's not good enough. I need a ruggedized A4 > tablet > with a display roughly like Sony VAIO (yes, the LED-backlit one, except > A4, not postage stamp sized). > This statement clearly defines the problem. You are seeking to use a non-standard paper size. Now, if you would consider using a standard letter sized (8.5"x11") display you might have better luck. I am familiar with A4, it came up a lot when I worked in Russia. But I can't for the life of me conclude why anyone would want to work with it on a daily basis. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 22:43:12 2007 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 23:43:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> <20070303204257.GN31912@leitl.org> <5366105b0703031253k4c28bbdfm60f9abd7fccd9a09@mail.gmail.com> <20070303211106.GT31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4902d9990703031443n1c870ea4m827d14b667722612@mail.gmail.com> On 3/3/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > On 3/3/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > > > Hello? I have an iBook. It's not good enough. I need a ruggedized A4 > tablet > > with a display roughly like Sony VAIO (yes, the LED-backlit one, except > > A4, not postage stamp sized). > > > > This statement clearly defines the problem. You are seeking to use a > non-standard paper size. Now, if you would consider using a standard letter > sized ( 8.5"x11") display you might have better luck. I am familiar with > A4, it came up a lot when I worked in Russia. But I can't for the life of > me conclude why anyone would want to work with it on a daily basis. Depends on where you live: A4 is standard all over Europe and, according to Wikipedia, "in most countries of the world". For me it's the US letter format the one that seems really weird. Alfio From exi at syzygy.com Sat Mar 3 23:12:51 2007 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 3 Mar 2007 23:12:51 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> References: <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070303231251.17637.qmail@syzygy.com> >busting his chops, trying to make machine-phase happen. Since I typically >miss about 90% of what is going on, I would like to see who else is working >in molecular nanotechnology. Working as in, studying currently, or doing >R&D in the lab, whether government, academia or industry. I'm working at Nanorex on open source design software for machine phase synthesis. Does that count? -eric From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 00:23:31 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 19:23:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <20070303231251.17637.qmail@syzygy.com> References: <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> <20070303231251.17637.qmail@syzygy.com> Message-ID: On 3 Mar 2007 23:12:51 -0000, Eric Messick wrote: > > >busting his chops, trying to make machine-phase happen. Since I typically > >miss about 90% of what is going on, I would like to see who else is > working > >in molecular nanotechnology. Working as in, studying currently, or doing > >R&D in the lab, whether government, academia or industry. > > I'm working at Nanorex on open source design software for machine > phase synthesis. Does that count? > > -eric > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Mar 4 04:27:35 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 23:27:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <20070303231251.17637.qmail@syzygy.com> References: <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070303232524.041df290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:12 PM 3/3/2007 +0000, Eric Messick wrote: > >busting his chops, trying to make machine-phase happen. Since I typically > >miss about 90% of what is going on, I would like to see who else is working > >in molecular nanotechnology. Working as in, studying currently, or doing > >R&D in the lab, whether government, academia or industry. > >I'm working at Nanorex on open source design software for machine >phase synthesis. Does that count? Definitely. I need to order several million tons of nanotube cable. When can I get delivery? Keith Henson From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 10:13:27 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:13:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychological stress and Suffering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <574782.69480.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > So let us perhaps separate the concepts. There is > no question in an > extropians mind (at least generally speaking) that > robust nanotechnology can > completely eliminate "human suffering"). Lets say this is so. All material needs are completely satisfied by nanotechnology. Then there would still be the suffering from interpersonal relationships, competition, and failure. Post humans might still suffer from unrequited love and losing at chess for example. > So from an > extropian philosophical > perspective there is "no human suffering" other than > that which is > self-inflicted. Interesting. That is also true in Buddhism only for a different reason also related to choice. The Buddhists believe that suffering is self-inflicted because the self chooses to desire things it cannot have and become attached to things it cannot keep. In the extropian framework, suffering is self-inflicted because the self chooses out of unreasoning fear to not develop the technology to give it the things it desires and to keep the things that it has. > Would you hazard a guess at to how Buddihst > philopsopy may evolve if "human > suffering" is no longer of concern. So long as we compete for anything including one another's attentions or affections, there will still be suffering. The zen-mind will still be useful for the both the competition and dealing with the outcome of such competition whether it be a spat with the spouse or interstellar war. And who knows what conflicts post-humans might engage in or why? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Sun Mar 4 10:25:38 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:25:38 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... Message-ID: >Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 21:24:10 +0100 >From: Eugen Leitl >On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:37:05PM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > It looks like the long anticipated "Engines of Creation 2.0" is out. > > URL: [1]http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?bookid=503 >I have no idea why they "need to confirm my identity" for a free >download. I guess no EoC2 for me, then. (I thought EoC was >a Nanosystems for pedestrians, so I never bothered with it. >Is EoC2 any different?). Anyone read it? Any good? >Any kind pirate (ARRRR! Shiver me timbers!) can send me a copy? I agree the Wowio registration is ridiculous. They have in the last weeks (since Perry tried it) "improved" the registration after the first level: ------------------------------- Select Registration Method: Certified Email Addresss (.edu, .gov, .mil, .us) Credit Card (not charged - for authentication only) Scan of ID (driver's license, student ID, etc.) Friends and Family Code ------------------------------- but this first one is more than enough to disgust people here. Since I have an .edu address and various kinds of ID, I downloaded it using one of those. I have no moral problems sending my copy of this Engines of Creation to anyone who doesn't wish to pass through Wowio's anal registration procedure. Email me and ask. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From eugen at leitl.org Sun Mar 4 11:50:57 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:50:57 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Boks On-line, was Re: Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: References: <5366105b0703031054y56a268f5n26bb75b8dd98d370@mail.gmail.com> <20070303204257.GN31912@leitl.org> <5366105b0703031253k4c28bbdfm60f9abd7fccd9a09@mail.gmail.com> <20070303211106.GT31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070304115057.GV31912@leitl.org> On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 05:22:17PM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote: > This statement clearly defines the problem. You are seeking to use a > non-standard paper size. Now, if you would consider using a standard Of course it's a standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DIN_standards in fact it's even ISO 216: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4_paper_size and only a few usual recalcitrants (USA and Canada) which stick to the Letter/Legal/Executive (bastardized in Canadia by rounding it to metric) but I used it just as shorthand for size. Letter would do just as well. > letter sized ( 8.5"x11") display you might have better luck. I am > familiar with A4, it came up a lot when I worked in Russia. But I You will stumble across ISO 216 everywhere in the world as soon as you leave US or Canada. > can't for the life of me conclude why anyone would want to work with > it on a daily basis. I would prefer square substrates with power of two number of pixels, but it's not suitable for people that well. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 11:58:56 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 22:58:56 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychological stress and Suffering In-Reply-To: <574782.69480.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <574782.69480.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3/4/07, The Avantguardian wrote: --- Robert Bradbury wrote: > > > So let us perhaps separate the concepts. There is > > no question in an > > extropians mind (at least generally speaking) that > > robust nanotechnology can > > completely eliminate "human suffering"). > > Lets say this is so. All material needs are completely > satisfied by nanotechnology. Then there would still be > the suffering from interpersonal relationships, > competition, and failure. Post humans might still > suffer from unrequited love and losing at chess for > example. > You could just decide how much you will let such things bother you if you could reprogram your mind at will. There would be a whole spectrum of choice available to you, from completely eliminating the adverse feelings to allowing them to occur unfettered, and in between perhaps you could allow yourself to experience sweet bitterness but not despair... or whatever variation on this you fancied. Although the material benefits of posthuman life will be welcome, the real advantage will be the ability to make yourself as happy as you like by directly accessing your mind. Stathis Papaiaonnou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Mar 4 14:18:32 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:18:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Lunar Eclipse night of 3-4 March ... Message-ID: .. was glorious! Here: An amateur German astronomy group with professional pictures, "Live" from the event: http://www.vds-astro.de/astroaktuell/2007/Mondfinsternis/live/Mondfinsternis-live.htm My small experiment with a "Canon Powershot" digital camera (heh!) http://amara.com/luneclipse/ Compare an image from the folks with the professional equipment: http://www.vds-astro.de/astroaktuell/2007/Mondfinsternis/image/IMG_3047B.jpg with an image from my handy digital that is not designed for such photography http://amara.com/luneclipse/IMG_5289_cropped.jpg Ok, you laugh, but at least the lunar maria is correct, true? Samantha, now I know what all of those settings do. :-) Did any of you see it? The professional and amateur astronomy groups are always aware about things like this, but there was no indication that anyone in my town was aware about it. I almost never watch TV, so I don't know if it was a TV news item. In total I've seen four lunar eclipses from my flat in my town, 4 x 4 hours = 16 hours of eclipsing, with people walking around below my apartment building, and with 100 other apartments with terraces looking in the same direction as mine, and I never saw a single person looking UP or from their terraces at the glorious spectacle of the eclipsed Moon occurring over their heads. How difficult can it be to look at the Moon? I'm a misfit here. 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 citta437 at aol.com Fri Mar 2 20:38:23 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:38:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anthropic Principle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C92B21DB0D93E1-15FC-8622@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> I often ponder why there is something rather than everything. My usual answer is the anthropic principle, but outside our neat little domain lies all the other Tegmark Level 4 possibilities. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University _________________ Natures' uncertainty priniciple/randomness goes against man's desire. We want certainty despite the obvious irrationality of beliefs/thoughts. The Tegmark Level 4 possibilities are states of potentialities where some exist in our universe of quantum gravity and relativity. Hypothetically there are some other universes where our laws of physics cannot reach yet. A utopian universe is what we want now not in the far future. The transhumanist thought appeals to the techno-savvy minds who believed in artificial intelligence. But are they reality challenged if they are not aware of the random processes of nature {{the uncertainty principle }? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From citta437 at aol.com Sat Mar 3 19:59:58 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:59:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The goal justifies the means? Message-ID: <8C92BE5A7CA2354-518-9FD8@webmail-de07.sysops.aol.com> Evidently, Transhumanists' goals are dependent on scientific discoveries and the latter need refined technological devices to progress in the path of unlimited possibilities. The inderdependencies between science and technology is obviously necessary for this journey but to add another philosophy on top of this processes of growth seemed redundant to the already exploding field of scientific research. In other words, the importance of the goals supercede the means to attain the goal. I'm into prolonging life if the means to attain it is within reason. I'm in favor of artificial intelligence to aid us in making life peaceful and comfortable. But there is always a trade-off in the process of obtaining these goals; are we ready to give up what it means to be human? To be human means having feelings of compassion towards ourselves and the environment we live in. I could envision a world of robotic humanoids without reason and feelings. Who could continue to monitor them when something goes wrong? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From citta437 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 01:55:47 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 20:55:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Psychological stress/Suffering In-Reply-To: <8C92C1672606E74-518-A6F3@webmail-de07.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92C1672606E74-518-A6F3@webmail-de07.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8C92C175CC727D4-518-A718@webmail-de07.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: citta437 at aol.com To: extropy-chat at lists.exptropy.org Sent: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 7:49 PM Subject: Psychological stress/Suffering ? Hi, thanks for welcoming me to the list.? ? Jef wrote: "I would like to ask your opinion on the issue of universal suffering? with regard to extropic thinking:? ? In my opinion, the Buddhist concept of the universal suffering of all? sentient entities is useful, but it is a concept framed within a? traditional paradigm of scarcity, and as such it is seen to offer? escape from an unpleasant state of being."? ? My comment: The emphasis of seeing reality as it really is without judgemental attitude of a self is not an escape but a challenge to open one's mind to the real cause of suffering which is desire arising from thoughts of self as independent from the forces of nature.? ? Jef: "However, upon gaining an aware acceptance of self as/within nature,? one finds that there is no objective suffering, nor is there any? objective self who can suffer. From this perspective of aware? acceptance, one can choose most freely."? ? My comment: There is a saying in Zen that "to study the mind{self }is to forget the self and to forget the self is to be enlightened by a thousand things in dharma including the reality of suffering which can be overcomed with no attachment to thoughts/desires/beliefs. The historical Buddha emphasized critical thinking in line with the teaching of impermanence, suffering and no self.? ? ?Jef: "I am aware of course of the Zen Buddhist warrior, at peace within his? fighting art, but I don't see this as an exception. Again the? implicit aim is one of harmonious flow, rather than intentional? striving."? ? Awareness as a practice of meditation comes naturally as thoughts are released without strain or strife. It comes and goes as the movement of the mind is a form of kinetic energy. There is no permanent self abiding inside the brain but an imprint of memory and language.? ? Jef: " II would suggest that this traditional Buddhist conception is framed? within a world-view that did not include today's knowledge of adaptive? dynamical systems nor the dynamics of co-evolutionary ecologies."? ? In the contrary, the practice of Zen is a dynamic process aligned with today's psychological therapeutic system of treating delusions and illusions of reality.? ? Jef: "In contrast, extropian thinking recognizes that striving for ongoing? growth is essential and intrinsic to survival of any entity in the? bigger picture."? ? To me extropian thinking is a natural outgrowth of an evolving and developing brain. A well developed brain needs a healthy lifestyle and a healthy nurturing environment which is essential for growth.? ? Jef: "Now one could easily respond that striving for growth may certainly be? conducted with a zen-mind, and I would agree, but would refer back to? my point that this would be commonly seen as an exception rather than? a preferred new "standard" among most Buddhists. "? ? ?I don't know what you mean by "new standard" among most Buddhists. Perhaps this book "Thoughts Without a Thinker" by Mark Epstein, a practicing Buddhist and psychiatrist would help. Below is an excerpt or an overview:? ? "Epstein explains the unique psychological contributions of the teachings of Buddhism, describes the path of meditation in contemporary psychological language, and lays the groundwork for a meditation-inspired psychotherapy. Part I of the book is an orientation to the Buddhist perspective. Dispelling misconceptions common even among those already practicing meditative techniques, this section presents the Buddha's psychological teachings in the language of Western psychodynamics. Part II explains the meditative practices of bare attention, concentration, mindfulness, and analytic inquiry, and shows how they speak to issues at the forefront of psychological concern."? ? Terry? ________________________________________________________________________? AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.? ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. =0 From citta437 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 14:44:18 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:44:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Problem is nothing. In-Reply-To: <8C92C81BFE4EE95-12E4-B1E6@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92C81BFE4EE95-12E4-B1E6@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8C92C82B8DF009B-12E4-B1F8@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> That statement is loaded with implications. What does it mean to a nanotechnologist?? ? If we are all forms of energy, what was there before energies in all its forms start?? ? The nature of our mind cannot imagine nothing as nothing. That I think is the problem of our mind as energy in constant motion. ? To upload our mind, we use computers and hi-tech devices to solve the problem for the time being that we are in spacetime. Julian Barbour, a Brithish physicist, claimed spacetime does not exist inorder to formulate the grand theory of everything or the Grand Unification theory.? ? In the scientific community that is a problem still unsolved today. For some who think that they are gods living the life of humans, the problem is nothing {meaning they can handle everything} or vice versa.? ? To a Zen mind the problem is this thinking mind involved in spacetime which does not exist except in our universe of quantum gravity and relativity.? ? Not to sound dogmatic, it seems we create our problem to solve nothing for the expanding universe gets expanding indefinitely.? ? Don't get me wrong, I'm for scientific discoveries and technological advancement. I'd get bored if there's no problem.? ? Terry? ? ? ? ________________________________________________________________________? AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.? ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. =0 From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Mar 4 15:48:04 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 07:48:04 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Lunar Eclipse night of 3-4 March ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200703041548.l24Fm7Jt000896@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Doh! Couldn't even catch the last part of it here in Taxifornia: too cloudy. {8-[ This woulda been my fifth lunar eclipse had I been able to see it. They don't get much press here either Amara. Thanks for the pictures! spike ... > > Did any of you see it? The professional and amateur astronomy groups... ... How difficult can it be to look at the Moon? > I'm a misfit here. > > Amara > From citta437 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 16:27:45 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:27:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Problem of Consciousness Message-ID: <8C92C912CC1AA3F-12E4-B466@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> "> The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there > something rather than nothing? "A still more fundamental question: how do we know there really is something? Can it be proven? And why do zen masters speak slowly and distinctly like Master Po? It's really hard to imagine a fast talking auctioneer spewing koans rapid fire." ___________ A good question so to speak. Our minds enjoy to be entertained by thought that provokes thought. How do thoughts know consciousness or does the organic brain matter experience pain or suffering? In the event of a stroke, some brain cells die but these cells cannot communicate the sensation of pain, the effects are manifested only on the loss of function i.e. the loss of cognitive or motor functions as the case maybe. Evolution tells us this process of consciousness arise from interactive processes from the cellular level to continuous growth of interactions with different energies of consciousness. Sorry if this sounds circular. Rocks don't exhibit a high level of consciousness as a Rocket scientist does. If an astronaut does not pay attention to what he is doing, we observed his level of consciousness is diminished to a state of potentiality. We can prove the existence of consciousness by using direct observation, by analytical thinking and by using hi-tech monitoring system/scientific method of investigation. Problem is the subject/consciousness becomes fuzzy when the observer becomes the observed. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From exi at syzygy.com Sun Mar 4 17:20:55 2007 From: exi at syzygy.com (Eric Messick) Date: 4 Mar 2007 17:20:55 -0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand... In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070303232524.041df290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> <20070303202410.GL31912@leitl.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070303232524.041df290@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070304172055.27543.qmail@syzygy.com> >I need to order several million tons of nanotube cable. When can I get >delivery? > >Keith Henson I'm sorry, that product is on back order at the moment. We'll let you know when we receive sufficient stock from our supplier to fill your order. Remember, we appreciate your business. :-) -eric BTW, exi at syzygy.com is set to bounce messages, because someone on this list is harvesting email addresses. I don't post much, but whenever I last did I started receiving lots of spam to this address, which is only subscribed to this list. I'm subscribed at another (unique) address as well. From jonkc at att.net Sun Mar 4 17:39:40 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:39:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001b01c75e84$24e85b50$f5074e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > What makes anyone suppose that "nothing" is the default physical > or metaphysical > condition, or even an intelligible construct? Usually one should choose the simple scenario over the complex, provided it is free of contradictions. Nothing is simpler than something, and it is paradox free as there is not anything to contradict it. It would be logical to conclude that there is nothing, and yet we would be wrong. > Nobody has ever seen "nothing" Yes, and therein lies the mystery > I get so tired of this fake question. I disagree, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. However if you mean the question will never be answered so there no point in spending much time with it then I agree. No point except perhaps in the pleasure contemplating the mysterious can give us. John K Clark From amara at amara.com Sun Mar 4 17:51:13 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:51:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Lunar Eclipse night of 3-4 March ... Message-ID: >Doh! Couldn't even catch the last part of it here in Taxifornia: too >cloudy. {8-[ This woulda been my fifth lunar eclipse had I been able to >see it. They don't get much press here either Amara. Thanks for the >pictures! spike You can read some dialog from me and a couple others during the eclipse and talking about our 'results' afterwards. My photo is like an impressionist painting.. :-) http://asymptotia.com/2007/03/02/eclipse/ Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Mar 4 18:06:48 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 12:06:48 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dark Ages Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070304120104.0251fb90@satx.rr.com> I see in NYT online an ad for: <600 years of degenerate, godless, inhuman behavior. THE DARK AGES, Tonight 9/8c only As only The History Channel can bring you.> "godless"? I always thought "the dark ages" referred to the period of European history when squabbling blood-thirsty god-botherers rather conspicuously ruled the roost... Damien Broderick From citta437 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 18:17:43 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:17:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropy/ the Nature of Awareness/consciousness Message-ID: <8C92CA0892BD175-12E4-B73C@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> You wrote: "According to traditional (non-evolutionary) empiricists like Locke and Hume, the mind plays no active role in perception. Instead the objects of our awareness act on our senses and then the mind steps in to actively interpret those perceptions. This would seem to be a reasonable view, but does it conflict with evolution theory? I think so. YOu wrote: Traditional empiricists find themselves in a quagmire when they try to trace sensory awareness back through the path of evolution. The concept of sense awareness breaks down at lower organisms, for example at the level of the microbe. Primitive animals like the amoeba and the paramecium seem 'aware,' but what is the nature of this awareness? These animals have no nervous systems and no obvious sense organs." _________________ My comment: Traditional non-evolutionary empiricists used mind to observe mind using their fuzzy logic of observing the observed. To brake from traditions, we have a better system of scientific and technological aids. The mind is an energy in motion/the behavior of which can be observed by objective means {detachment from the subjective interpertations of consciousness}. Reason based on memory/language and thoughts is not always reliable due to emotional attachment to self/subjectivity. Even our body cells have some primitive form of consciousness embedded in the DNA inherited from the evolutionary ancestors you call primitive like amoeba etc, with no complex organs or brains which grew larger in the process of change/extropy. Evolutionary theory is not based on reason alone but on continuous observation and critical thinking by using the scientific method of falsifiability objectively with technological resources not available in some spacetime. The nature of awareness is not static but changes from simple to higher forms of energy in response to change. So this nature of awareness/consciousness is impermanent for it depends on the complexity of growth. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From citta437 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 19:04:12 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:04:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cont. re: nature of consciousness Message-ID: <8C92CA707FA1FFD-12E4-B87C@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> "Gts: "It seems that in our branch of evolution, we lost the ability to eat light but retained the ability to detect it." My reply: Not to be rude but who is this you called "we?" Is it not a form of energy/thinking and cognition? Light as energy is absorbed by an organ system called brain which in turn transforms the energy of light via retina and optic nerves to an image imprinted by past event in the center of memory and language/a closed system. gts: "Light detection is perhaps the most basic example of knowledge acquisition. This knowledge starts with biological knowledge in plants and animals, but extends to intellectual human knowledge. Vision and all more advanced forms of cognition can be understood as more efficient substitutes for primitive trial-and-error random locomotion, including even the process of forming abstract theories about the world." My reply: Knowledge as a product of energy is recyclable. Where did Einstein get his theory of energy as mass times the speed of light squared? Abstract ideas arise from a mind with a higher level of consciousness. Virus and bacteria have some form of awareness/consciousness otherwise they could not mutate or multiply given the energy to grow. gts: "All evolution, from the physical and biological to the mental and cultural, can then be seen as a single contiguous process involving the growth of knowledge." Me: I agree seen in that perspective. Some knowledge like beliefs and dogmas remain in a state of potent energy which can lead to entropy instead of extropy. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From citta437 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 20:01:05 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:01:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Concepts of Suffering Message-ID: <8C92CAEFA16E8B7-12E4-B9F8@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> "Me: "If extropic reality is a process of growth to relieve mankind's > suffering then that parallels the goal of Buddhism towards liberation > from suffering." Robert: "So let us perhaps separate the concepts. There is no question in an extropians mind (at least generally speaking) that robust nanotechnology can completely eliminate "human suffering"). So from an extropian philosophical perspective there is "no human suffering" other than that which is self-inflicted. Would you hazard a guess at to how Buddihst philopsopy may evolve if "human suffering" is no longer of concern. Regards, Robert _________ Hi, Robert, thanks for your question regarding the concepts of extropy/entropy{suffering}. Concepts of suffering exist only in the mind which is a by-product of potent energy/entropy. So this belief/thought of a robust future is a mere thought not an absolute reality. Zen mind does not hold on to any concept of entropy nor extropy for energy, according to physics, cannot be created nor destroyed just transformed from one form to another. From the evolutionary perspective, we evolved from simple processes to more and more complex processes. Extropy and entropy are the same forces of energy like two sides of a coin. One side cannot exist without the other. Best regard, Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From scerir at libero.it Sun Mar 4 19:46:47 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:46:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Anthropic Principle References: <8C92B21DB0D93E1-15FC-8622@FWM-D08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000801c75e95$dd258470$dbb81f97@archimede> Terry: > But are they reality challenged if they are not aware > of the random processes of nature {the uncertainty principle}? According to W.Pauli ('Wave Machanics', circa 1933) theorists use different terms, depending on the personal interpretation of the UP. Ungenauigheit = inexactness Unbekanntheit = unknowability Unsicherheit = uncertainty Unbestimmtheit = indeterminacy Since then, it seems there is no good, general agreement about questions like the following. Do uncertainty relations apply to a single system [I hope so] or just to ensembles of identically prepared systems? [and in the latter case, doesn't QM presuppose hidden variables (local, or nonlocal, or contextual)?]. Do u.r. imply a mere limitation on making certain kinds of measurements _simultaneously_? Do u.r. imply a limitation on the possible knowledge obtainable about a system? Do u.r. imply a limitation on the properties that can be ascribed to a quantum system? (Not to mention that there are cases in which the u.r. are wrong, ie because one observable is discrete and the other, noncommuting, is bounded). So, as you can see, it is a typical 'Zen' scenario, and it is not easy to be completely 'aware' of the UP, since it is more misanthropic than anthropic. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609185 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609048 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105049 http://www.phys.uu.nl/~wwwgrnsl/jos/bellabst/bell90.pdf s. "Turning now to the question of the empirical support [for the uncertainty principle], we unhesitatingly declare that rarely in the history of physics has there been a principle of such universal importance with so few credentials of experimental tests". -Max Jammer, 1974. From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 20:08:43 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:08:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Lunar Eclipse night of 3-4 March ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <352174.41185.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I happened to be in a car on the way back from the grocery store during the eclipse...I didn't recognize it for what it was at the time, but I did notice that the moon looked different from usual (somewhat orange-tinged). Very cool! I'm in Santa Clara, CA by the way. - Anne Amara Graps wrote: .. was glorious! Here: An amateur German astronomy group with professional pictures, "Live" from the event: http://www.vds-astro.de/astroaktuell/2007/Mondfinsternis/live/Mondfinsternis-live.htm My small experiment with a "Canon Powershot" digital camera (heh!) http://amara.com/luneclipse/ Compare an image from the folks with the professional equipment: http://www.vds-astro.de/astroaktuell/2007/Mondfinsternis/image/IMG_3047B.jpg with an image from my handy digital that is not designed for such photography http://amara.com/luneclipse/IMG_5289_cropped.jpg Ok, you laugh, but at least the lunar maria is correct, true? Samantha, now I know what all of those settings do. :-) Did any of you see it? The professional and amateur astronomy groups are always aware about things like this, but there was no indication that anyone in my town was aware about it. I almost never watch TV, so I don't know if it was a TV news item. In total I've seen four lunar eclipses from my flat in my town, 4 x 4 hours = 16 hours of eclipsing, with people walking around below my apartment building, and with 100 other apartments with terraces looking in the same direction as mine, and I never saw a single person looking UP or from their terraces at the glorious spectacle of the eclipsed Moon occurring over their heads. How difficult can it be to look at the Moon? I'm a misfit here. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From citta437 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 22:09:19 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:09:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian thinking /desires for survival Message-ID: <8C92CC0E4565797-12E4-BD22@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> "Jef Allbright said from yesterday's post: "In contrast, extropian thinking recognizes that striving for ongoing growth is essential and intrinsic to survival of any entity in the bigger picture." Me: Sorry for this continuation of yesterday's message. Imho, extropian thinking is driven by a desire for survival. However in my practice of Zen, desire for survival can be a hindrance to see reality as it really is. Extropic energy[organized form of energy} cannot cling to desires as esssential for survival. The random processes of energy does not depend on our desires. The anthropic principle conflicts with randomness/one of the characteristics of reality. We want an absolute certainty of a utopian future. Jef: "Now one could easily respond that striving for growth may certainly be conducted with a zen-mind, and I would agree, but would refer back to my point that this would be commonly seen as an exception rather than a preferred new "standard" among most Buddhists." Me: "There are many schools of thoughts even among Buddhists. Zen mind as no mind acknowledge the existence of thoughts and desires as mere thoughts and desires nothing profound nor the essential esssence of nature. In physics, energy which can neither be created by desire nor by extropic thoughts is merely potent energy but energy nonetheless. Extropian thoughts/desire is only one side of the analogous coin which cannot exist without the other side. Peace, Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From citta437 at aol.com Sun Mar 4 22:52:55 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:52:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Random Energy/The Uncertainty Principle Message-ID: <8C92CC6FB4A4401-12E4-BDFB@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Just a thought "From the book about random thoughts/energy or "Are we Hardwired to Think?" or something to that effect. >"genes and environment are not opposing forces; heredity shapes how we interpret our surroundings, which in turn changes the very structure of our brain. Clearly we are not simply puppets of either influence. Perhaps most interesting, the book suggests that the source of our ability to choose, to act unexpectedly, may lie in the chaos principle: the most minute differences during activation of a single neuron may lead to utterly unpredictable actions. This masterful account of the nature-nurture controversy -- at once provocative and informative -- answers some of our oldest questions in unexpected new ways". In short how does nanotechnology predict the future? Its like the god of technology desiring to be independent of nature/randomness/the uncertainty principle. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 22:23:10 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:23:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Cont. re: nature of consciousness In-Reply-To: <8C92CA707FA1FFD-12E4-B87C@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92CA707FA1FFD-12E4-B87C@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Hi Terry, > Gts: "It seems that in our branch of evolution, we lost the ability to > eat light but retained the ability to detect it." > > My reply: Not to be rude but who is this you called "we?" By "we" I was referring to all organisms that detect light but do obtain energy from it, of course. My premise, which I admit is speculative, is that plants and animals share a common ancestor capable of something similar to photosynthesis, probably facilitated by beta-carotene which is a chemical precursor to both plant chlorophyll and animal retinol. This idea is not my own; I accepted the hypothesis as reasonable after reading a compilation of essays by some prominent evolutionary epistemologists. I'm sorry I don't remember exactly which philosopher was responsible for this particular idea, or even the title of the book. At present that book is in storage but I could try to dig it out if necessary. > gts: "Light detection is perhaps the most basic example of knowledge > acquisition. This knowledge starts with biological knowledge in plants > and animals, but extends to intellectual human knowledge. Vision and all > more advanced forms of cognition can be understood as more efficient > substitutes for primitive trial-and-error random locomotion, including > even the process of forming abstract theories about the world." > > My reply: Knowledge as a product of energy is recyclable. Sorry, I have no idea what that means. > gts: "All evolution, from the physical and biological to the mental and > cultural, can then be seen as a single contiguous process involving the > growth of knowledge." > > Me: I agree seen in that perspective. Some knowledge like beliefs and > dogmas remain in a state of potent energy which can lead to entropy > instead of extropy. Sorry, I have no idea what that means, either. -gts From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun Mar 4 22:50:32 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:50:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Question: Buying OTC supplements in Australia In-Reply-To: <8C92CC0E4565797-12E4-BD22@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <372237.1659.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm considering traveling to Australia for the purpose of starting a computer science degree (three-year degrees instead of four, and it seems like a neat place). But, I'm a little bit concerned about the apparent trend toward over-regulating dietary supplements within Australia. I've found it shockingly difficult to find highly credible information about the *current* regulations over the Internet. But what I have found, doesn't sound too good. In particular relevance to me, I've found that the amino-acid derivative S-Adenosyl-L-Methionine is especially helpful for mood. I can buy this OTC very easily in the United States, but I'm concerned that it may not be available in Australia. I'm also considering experimenting with the "smart nutrients" Ginkgo Biloba and Phosphatidylserine, incidentally. Anyway, I was hoping to hear a reply from a genuine Australian, about whether or not these types of supplements can easily be purchased over-the-counter in Australia, or not. If not, by what legal means can they be obtained? And, does Australia sell brand-name supplements at retail? Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --------------------------------- Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 23:25:59 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:25:59 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <001b01c75e84$24e85b50$f5074e0c@MyComputer> References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> <001b01c75e84$24e85b50$f5074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <62c14240703041525x7cad71e5m24ed9075063225c4@mail.gmail.com> On 3/4/07, John K Clark wrote: > I disagree, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. However if you > mean the question will never be answered so there no point in spending much > time with it then I agree. No point except perhaps in the pleasure > contemplating the mysterious can give us. > > John K Clark Interesting stance considering this topic has not be thoroughly discussed in the legitimate scientific magazines of which you have spoken so highly... (sorry in advance if this jab is not well received) From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Mar 4 23:55:44 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:55:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question: Buying OTC supplements in Australia In-Reply-To: <372237.1659.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <8C92CC0E4565797-12E4-BD22@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> <372237.1659.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070304175036.0246c580@satx.rr.com> >I'm a little bit concerned about the apparent trend toward >over-regulating dietary supplements within Australia. I'm not there right now, but yes, Big Nanny is alive and well and high in the saddle. (Although all manner of nonsense "homeopathic health supplements" *can* be purchased--but then "remedies" with nonactive non-ingredients might not be that dangerous, unless people ignore more effective treatments.) A couple of years ago, though, melatonin, e.g., was not available, as I recall, so the jetlagged just had to suffer. On the other hand, asthma puffers were (are?) available OTC, whereas I'm now obliged repeatedly to pay a US quack good money for a pointless prescription. Damien Broderick From citta437 at aol.com Mon Mar 5 00:26:21 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:26:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nature of Knowledge Message-ID: <8C92CD408A4F665-12E4-C127@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> To gts: Knowledge as a product of energy is recyclable. It means it can be either interpreted or misinterpreted depending on memory and a system of language stored in the brain. As ideas get registered in the brain's center for memory, the idea undergoes transformation depending on the evolved brain's capacity to discern thoughts or ideas as mere thoughts not reality. Who can predict whether this idea is transformed from entropic energy to extropic energy? At present the only thing that can be predictable is the uncertainty principle. > gts: "All evolution, from the physical and biological to the mental and > cultural, can then be seen as a single contiguous process involving the > growth of knowledge." > > Me: I agree seen in that perspective. Some knowledge like beliefs and > dogmas remain in a state of potent energy which can lead to entropy > instead of extropy. gts: "Sorry, I have no idea what that means, either." My reply: We are all sorts of energy in constant interactive processing of thoughts. You and I exist only as thoughts. There is no you nor I that exist permanently except as energy. In Zen, the only permanent is impermanence as energy cannot be created nor destroyed just transformed into different forms of energy. What were you before you were born? a Zen master asked. A thought, the by-product of energy. Terry ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 42, Issue 5 ******************************************* ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From sentience at pobox.com Mon Mar 5 01:38:21 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:38:21 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nature of Knowledge In-Reply-To: <8C92CD408A4F665-12E4-C127@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92CD408A4F665-12E4-C127@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <45EB748D.7000009@pobox.com> Moderators, Please remove citta437 from the Extropians list. Reason: Insufficient knowledge. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 5 02:21:21 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 20:21:21 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] zapping clueless newbies In-Reply-To: <45EB748D.7000009@pobox.com> References: <8C92CD408A4F665-12E4-C127@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> <45EB748D.7000009@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070304201735.02386d60@satx.rr.com> At 05:38 PM 3/4/2007 -0800, Eliezer wrote: >Moderators, > >Please remove citta437 from the Extropians list. >Reason: Insufficient knowledge. This seems to me a little harsh. I quickly killfiled his posts, which abates the nuisance at my end. Perhaps moderators could put him on some level of quarantine (look but no speakee for now, until he gets the hang of it). Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 02:44:46 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:44:46 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] zapping clueless newbies In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070304201735.02386d60@satx.rr.com> References: <8C92CD408A4F665-12E4-C127@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> <45EB748D.7000009@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070304201735.02386d60@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/5/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 05:38 PM 3/4/2007 -0800, Eliezer wrote: > > >Moderators, > > > >Please remove citta437 from the Extropians list. > >Reason: Insufficient knowledge. > > This seems to me a little harsh. I quickly killfiled his posts, which > abates the nuisance at my end. Perhaps moderators could put him on > some level of quarantine (look but no speakee for now, until he gets > the hang of it). How does moderation work on this list? My first few posts were held pending approval but now they all seem to get through. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Mar 5 04:08:42 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:08:42 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dark Ages In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070304120104.0251fb90@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200703050408.l2548qrU005240@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > <600 years of degenerate, godless, inhuman behavior. THE DARK > AGES, Tonight 9/8c only As only The History Channel can bring > you.> > > "godless"? I always thought "the dark ages" referred to the period of > European history when squabbling blood-thirsty god-botherers rather > conspicuously ruled the roost... > > Damien Broderick Surely the NYT meant degenerate, godful, inhuman behavior. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Mar 5 04:25:30 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:25:30 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dark Ages In-Reply-To: <200703050408.l2548qrU005240@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070304120104.0251fb90@satx.rr.com> <200703050408.l2548qrU005240@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 3/4/07, spike wrote: > > > <600 years of degenerate, godless, inhuman behavior. THE DARK > > AGES, Tonight 9/8c only As only The History Channel can bring > > you.> > > > > "godless"? I always thought "the dark ages" referred to the period of > > European history when squabbling blood-thirsty god-botherers rather > > conspicuously ruled the roost... > > > > Damien Broderick > > Surely the NYT meant degenerate, godful, inhuman behavior. I'd go with degenerate, god-awful, inhuman behavior. Should satisfy both points of view, methinks. - Jef From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Mar 5 04:17:06 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:17:06 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nature of Knowledge In-Reply-To: <8C92CD408A4F665-12E4-C127@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <200703050431.l254VK4f015835@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of citta437 at aol.com ... > > What were you before you were born? a Zen master asked. Sperm? From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Mar 5 04:14:23 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:14:23 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Lunar Eclipse night of 3-4 March ... In-Reply-To: <352174.41185.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200703050431.l254VK4e015835@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Ja you musta caught the last part of it. Cool! spike _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne Corwin Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:09 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Lunar Eclipse night of 3-4 March ... I happened to be in a car on the way back from the grocery store during the eclipse...I didn't recognize it for what it was at the time, but I did notice that the moon looked different from usual (somewhat orange-tinged). Very cool! I'm in Santa Clara, CA by the way. - Anne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon Mar 5 04:34:46 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:34:46 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] zapping clueless newbies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200703050434.l254YuNl016091@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ________________________________________ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou ... How does moderation work on this list? My first few posts were held pending approval but now they all seem to get through. Stathis Papaioannou Stathis, we usually keep an eye on folks we don't know. If they post good stuff that makes sense and contributes to the signal, they become highly regarded, then moderation is not necessary. It's not a scientific process, but we try to be as reasonable as transhumanly possible. Post smart stuff, everybody. {8-] spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 5 04:51:10 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:51:10 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Nature of Knowledge In-Reply-To: <200703050431.l254VK4f015835@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <8C92CD408A4F665-12E4-C127@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> <200703050431.l254VK4f015835@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070304224623.0241c5f8@satx.rr.com> At 08:17 PM 3/4/2007 -0800, Spike wrote: > > > What were you before you were born? a Zen master asked. > >Sperm? Speak for yourself! I was an ovation. Damien Broderick [this does *not* mean I was born with the clap] [though these days, of course, some are *conceived* with the sound of one hand] From eugen at leitl.org Mon Mar 5 07:43:13 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 08:43:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] zapping clueless newbies In-Reply-To: References: <8C92CD408A4F665-12E4-C127@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> <45EB748D.7000009@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070304201735.02386d60@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070305074313.GT31912@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:44:46PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > How does moderation work on this list? My first few posts were > held pending approval but now they all seem to get through. All new users (including old users, who've unsubscribed, and resubscribed) are by default on moderation. The mod flag is removed as soon as the person posts a first worthwhile post. The flag is reinstated, if the person begins or participates in a high-noise thread. Because of some recent complaints about people being stuck in moderation queue forever, I decided to give this newcomer a chance, despite better knowledge. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 09:28:10 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:28:10 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dark Ages In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070304120104.0251fb90@satx.rr.com> <200703050408.l2548qrU005240@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 3/5/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I'd go with degenerate, god-awful, inhuman behavior. > The History Channel forums are ablaze with comments about this program from the history techies. The general conclusion seems to be that this was a 'dumbing-down' program for school children, to try to spark an interest in history. Lots of graphic video about pagans, accompanied by death metal music. So the publicity for the program was also dumbed-down. By 'godless', they probably meant 'pagan' or maybe even just 'immoral'. The historians all agree that the Early Middle Ages after the fall of the Roman Empire (500 -1000 AD) was a period of chaos with the forceful advancement of Christianity in Europe, where people converted to Christianity or were killed. The lack of a central control system also led to the feudal system where the serfs lived under the control (protection) of the local lord and his knights. BillK From alex at ramonsky.com Mon Mar 5 11:46:42 2007 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:46:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Lunar Eclipse night of 3-4 March ... References: Message-ID: <45EC0322.5060704@ramonsky.com> Our lot filmed it too, have rarely seen such a clear night in the UK! We got some lovely stills and 2 videos. I'll put them online when I get the camera back, but the others are currently busy editing ET into the footage : ) Best, AR Amara Graps wrote: >.. was glorious! > >Here: An amateur German astronomy group with professional pictures, >"Live" from the event: >http://www.vds-astro.de/astroaktuell/2007/Mondfinsternis/live/Mondfinsternis-live.htm > >My small experiment with a "Canon Powershot" digital camera (heh!) >http://amara.com/luneclipse/ > >Compare an image from the folks with the professional equipment: >http://www.vds-astro.de/astroaktuell/2007/Mondfinsternis/image/IMG_3047B.jpg > >with an image from my handy digital that is not designed for such photography >http://amara.com/luneclipse/IMG_5289_cropped.jpg > >Ok, you laugh, but at least the lunar maria is correct, true? > >Samantha, now I know what all of those settings do. :-) > >Did any of you see it? The professional and amateur astronomy groups are >always aware about things like this, but there was no indication that >anyone in my town was aware about it. I almost never watch TV, so I >don't know if it was a TV news item. > >In total I've seen four lunar eclipses from my flat in my town, 4 x >4 hours = 16 hours of eclipsing, with people walking around below my >apartment building, and with 100 other apartments with terraces looking >in the same direction as mine, and I never saw a single person looking >UP or from their terraces at the glorious spectacle of the eclipsed Moon >occurring over their heads. How difficult can it be to look at the Moon? >I'm a misfit here. > >Amara > > > From jonkc at att.net Mon Mar 5 17:12:54 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:12:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com><001b01c75e84$24e85b50$f5074e0c@MyComputer> <62c14240703041525x7cad71e5m24ed9075063225c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000f01c75f49$89ab6170$04074e0c@MyComputer> "Mike Dougherty" > Interesting stance considering this topic has not be thoroughly > discussed in the legitimate scientific magazines of which you have > spoken so highly Not everything of interest is scientific, and unlike the ESP and cold fusion people I never claimed it was. The reason you don't see articles in the legitimate scientific literature about the something rather than nothing question is that nobody can find anything new to say about the matter; nevertheless it's fun to think about from time to time. John K Clark From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Mar 5 16:32:59 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:32:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Dark Ages In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070304120104.0251fb90@satx.rr.com> <200703050408.l2548qrU005240@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070305103002.042d0260@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:25 PM 3/4/2007, you wrote: >On 3/4/07, spike wrote: > > > > > <600 years of degenerate, godless, inhuman behavior. THE DARK > > > AGES, Tonight 9/8c only As only The History Channel can bring > > > you.> > > > > > > "godless"? I always thought "the dark ages" referred to the period of > > > European history when squabbling blood-thirsty god-botherers rather > > > conspicuously ruled the roost... > > > > > > Damien Broderick > > > > Surely the NYT meant degenerate, godful, inhuman behavior. > >I'd go with degenerate, god-awful, inhuman behavior. > >Should satisfy both points of view, methinks. I watched "The Dark Ages" this weekend too. I had to turn my head a few times. Even the flagellates were too much. Horrible times. I also watched the "The History of Sex" this weekend. Same channel. Very, very amusing. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Mar 5 18:54:37 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:54:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times: My Avatar Message-ID: <29642728.542441173120877976.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> The Wild West of economic models or escapist distopia? (And since the Wild West was an escapist distopia, maybe this isn't an accurate dichotomy...) Maybe the better comparison is: Plato's Republic or Plato's Retreat? (revealing my age once again... ) You be the judge. PJ http://www.latimes.com/features/magazine/west/la-tm-neil09mar04,1,1455894.story?coll=la-headlines-west 800 WORDS My Avatar Dan Neil March 4, 2007 Great. Another world where I can't afford beachside real estate. Welcome to Second Life, the hugely hyped online social-networking cosmos/geekapalooza where players have unlimited freedom to shape the virtual world around them, and redesign themselves at will. They?that is, the animated versions of themselves, their "avatars"?can buy and sell real estate, start their own businesses, create art, discuss literature, go to movies and concerts. Second Life is a separate graphical reality, a "metaverse" limited only by the imagination. All of which sounds quite promising?Plato's Republic at the speed of broadband?except that this brave new world of human potential is 98% stupid, overrun with sex clubs, discos, casinos, yard sales, tragic architecture and more shopping malls than the San Fernando Valley. More Sin City than SimCity. Far from being the real world perfected, Second Life comes off as a zoo of its players' collective debaucheries. And it mocks all attempts to take it seriously. For example, when a volunteer for the John Edwards campaign set up an office in SL, he failed to notice the adult goods emporium next door. Is this what happens when you wiki reality? A little background: Second Life is the creation of Linden Lab in San Francisco, which opened up the website four years ago. Players?about a million logged on last month, many of them not drunk?pursue their happiness on about 139 square miles spread over three continents and thousands of tiny islands. The SL world has a sky, a horizon, a night and day. Times passes. Like a typical console game?for instance, Grand Theft Auto?SL is a 3-D world in which objects and surroundings move in relation to the player. You see other players and they, in their avatar-centric view, see you. The environment is rendered in rough, low-resolution digital textures, for now. In 10 years, SL will likely have the silky verisimilitude of Hollywood CGI. Joining SL is free, but to own property you have to pay a $9.95 monthly fee plus land-use costs proportional to your acreage (yes, even if you are from Orange County). Got your eye on that little parcel on the coast of the Southern Continent? The coin of the realm is Linden dollars, which you can buy from the almighty Linden Godhead with your credit card, at a rate of about 270 Linden dollars per $1. Residents are free to build whatever they want on their land: ski resort, dungeon, big-box mall. To fly the skies of SL?did I mention your avatar can fly??is to appreciate the wisdom of zoning regulations. It's like Monopoly on mescaline. Sound weird? Believe me, it is. Whatever its potential might be (the future of telecommuting?), SL is mostly a fantastically elaborate chat room where players go to dance, hang out on nude beaches and otherwise live their fantasy lives. There are almost no fat or unattractive avatars wandering around SL. Most of the females are large-breasted hotties, most of the men have torsos like Roman cuirasses. I can't even begin to hint at the polymorphous perversity available in Second Life, but the most popular place, at the moment I check, is Naughty Neva's Free Sex Orgy Room, where virtual sex workers pole-dance and lure customers into back rooms. Surprisingly, the Real World wants in in the worst way. In February, Sweden became the first country to open an embassy in Second Life. And Toyota debuted its new Scion models, aimed at Generation D, in an SL press event. The month before, the Sundance Film Festival held a screening of the documentary "Strange Culture" in SL. At about the same time, Arianna Huffington and other participants at the World Economic Forum in Davos participated in an SL event intoning the possibilities of the new virtual frontier. In short, all the cool kids are playing it. To keep up with these doings, Reuters and other news organizations have opened their own virtual SL bureaus. Whatever. In my week in Second Life, I had the usual newbie problems, some funny, some not. After I went ice-skating, I couldn't turn off the ice-skating animation, so my avatar performed involuntary triple salchows and double axels everywhere he went for the next day or so. Perhaps not coincidentally, I was later propositioned by a gay avatar, behind whom, I discovered, was a 55-year-old father of four on the down low. But mostly I just walked through this world with my virtual mouth hanging open. It's staggering, really, to ponder all the work and creativity poured into SL by what are, actually, its consumers. This kind of mass volunteerism is the power behind what author Don Tapscott calls "wikinomics," collaboration on an astronomical scale, a la Wikipedia. My question is a simple one: Is Second Life the best use of collective genius when the material world is so unfinished? If you had the drive and the imagination?not to mention the absurd amount of free time?to create a business or design a product, why wouldn't you do it in real space? If you could find friends and brainstorm good ideas and fuel a love affair, why wouldn't you do it in the here and now? Come back from Second Life, people. First Life needs you. From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 6 00:02:54 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:02:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Lunar Eclipse night of 3-4 March ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <586713.2015.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I caught the end of it last night at around 7:30. I have been charting the Moon and the Orion Constellation for about 6 months. I have been fascinated since I saw the most breathtaking view of the Orion right outside my kitchen window in Nov 2005. I'm still rather new at sky watching and haven't figured out what the charts could represent but I am rather dazzled by what I have observed. Just a quick thanks, I love it when you give a head's up. Anna:) --- Amara Graps wrote: > .. was glorious! > > Here: An amateur German astronomy group with > professional pictures, > "Live" from the event: > http://www.vds-astro.de/astroaktuell/2007/Mondfinsternis/live/Mondfinsternis-live.htm > > My small experiment with a "Canon Powershot" digital > camera (heh!) > http://amara.com/luneclipse/ > > Compare an image from the folks with the > professional equipment: > http://www.vds-astro.de/astroaktuell/2007/Mondfinsternis/image/IMG_3047B.jpg > > with an image from my handy digital that is not > designed for such photography > http://amara.com/luneclipse/IMG_5289_cropped.jpg > > Ok, you laugh, but at least the lunar maria is > correct, true? > > Samantha, now I know what all of those settings do. > :-) > > Did any of you see it? The professional and amateur > astronomy groups are > always aware about things like this, but there was > no indication that > anyone in my town was aware about it. I almost never > watch TV, so I > don't know if it was a TV news item. > > In total I've seen four lunar eclipses from my flat > in my town, 4 x > 4 hours = 16 hours of eclipsing, with people walking > around below my > apartment building, and with 100 other apartments > with terraces looking > in the same direction as mine, and I never saw a > single person looking > UP or from their terraces at the glorious spectacle > of the eclipsed Moon > occurring over their heads. How difficult can it be > to look at the Moon? > I'm a misfit here. > > Amara > > -- > > Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com > INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario > (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA > Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science > Institute (PSI), Tucson > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 00:32:08 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:32:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <000f01c75f49$89ab6170$04074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <364889.5031.qm@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi John, I'm not claiming that this is the answer, but one can attach some fun probabilities to the idea. If you imagine the "condition" of nothingness where there is no space, time, laws of physics, or laws of logic, then there is no inconsistency in suggesting that something can arise out of nothing at all. A question to follow is, "Well okay, so it would be *possible* for something to arise from nothing, but why should it? Why wouldn't it just remain as nothing?" If you imagine nothingness as a describable condition, where not a single entity of any sort can exist (incidentally, this single description even if mathematical would be infinitely long) then that particular condition of nothing can be ascribed the value of 1, and only 1. (1 particular condition from the infinite set of all possible conditions). If you also assign a value of 1 to each possible starting condition (where something does arise from nothing) then the sum total value of all possible conditions is infinity. (The full description of any one of these starting conditions could be very short, possibly equaling only 1 place value). That creates a ratio of 1 : Infinity (Infinity - 1), where the 1 favors that nothing will remain as nothing, and the infinity favors that nothing will transition to something. As we all know, any finite number divided by infinity equals zero. This suggests that the probability that nothing would remain nothing is zero, and the probability that nothing would transition is infinite, or 100% if you prefer. :-) This suggests to me that something has existed (and nothingness has ceased to exist) for as long as time has existed, but does not necessarily insist that nothingness has never existed at all. My poor guess is that the first "something" was the birth of the first Universe of the Multiverse. That's the way it works in my loopy mind, anyway. No matter what the case, I think there is a kernel of potential for science to fully explain this eventually. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 00:50:30 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:50:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] The Lunar Eclipse night of 3-4 March ... In-Reply-To: <586713.2015.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <981719.36059.qm@web37401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> That's going to be one of my first enhancements- a CCD implant so that I can see in real time the huge majestic nebulae and the giant Andromeda galaxy looming right over our heads (IIRC, The Andromeda galaxy spans an apparent distance of six moon diameters as seen from earth). Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 02:02:07 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:02:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <364889.5031.qm@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <364889.5031.qm@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:32:08 -0500, A B wrote: > If you imagine the "condition" of nothingness where... Problem for me is, I cannot imagine nothing no matter what conditions you might try to ascribe to it. T'aint possible for anyone to imagine nothing, I say, because to imagine anything is to imagine something. And any kind of something is not nothing. Normally I like what John Clark has to say, but I disagree with you here, John. I don't believe this is a legitimate question. It's not just that the question has no answer. Seems to me that it's worse than that: that the question itself has no meaning. -gts From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 02:58:52 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:58:52 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: References: <364889.5031.qm@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3/6/07, gts wrote: > On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:32:08 -0500, A B wrote: > > > If you imagine the "condition" of nothingness where... > > Problem for me is, I cannot imagine nothing no matter what conditions you > might try to ascribe to it. > > T'aint possible for anyone to imagine nothing, I say, because to imagine > anything is to imagine something. And any kind of something is not > nothing. It's not possible to imagine infinity, or a singularity, or no time and space, but that doesn't invalidate those concepts (although historically it has in many people's minds). Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 03:24:07 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 22:24:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: References: <364889.5031.qm@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240703051924j3f73702bg8cc964f4b80079e6@mail.gmail.com> On 3/5/07, gts wrote: > Normally I like what John Clark has to say, but I disagree with you here, > John. I don't believe this is a legitimate question. It's not just that > the question has no answer. Seems to me that it's worse than that: that > the question itself has no meaning. I am unable to relate to that perspective. Even if you conclude that a problem cannot be solved, there is still the analysis required to make the conclusion. That analysis may require a new mode of thinking, which may be applied to previously believed-to-be intractable problems. Rigorous mathematical induction is one simple example of an 'obvious' solution that requires a formal proof; and a methodology that can be reused in other contexts. Is the physical universe discrete like integers, or continuous like real numbers? If discrete, then what is between each unit volume of space-time if not Nothing? If you believe there is infinitely more definition/resolution at finer scales, then please explain your conceptualization - because this may futher open discussion. i think that's as succinct as i can be for now From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 03:53:00 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 03:53:00 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <001b01c75e84$24e85b50$f5074e0c@MyComputer> References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> <001b01c75e84$24e85b50$f5074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703051953y507b9831p5ebf4aa2f5a0b25a@mail.gmail.com> On 3/4/07, John K Clark wrote: > > Usually one should choose the simple scenario over the complex, provided > it > is free of contradictions. Nothing is simpler than something, and it is > paradox free as there is not anything to contradict it. It would be > logical > to conclude that there is nothing, and yet we would be wrong. > Would we? Suppose we weren't? Phrased that way, that doesn't sound like it makes sense, so let's use Hawking's rephrasing of the original question: "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" Now I'll ask, suppose the answer is "nothing does, nothing ever did"? A counterargument to that is the one by which someone is said to have refuted Berkeley: kick a stone and it _feels_ real. But suppose there is only the equations (well, plus initial conditions or whatnot, for brevity I'll say "the equations" to mean the mathematical construct representing our universe), and nothing breathes fire into them, nothing makes them "real". Or suppose something did breathe fire into _some_ equations - but not the ones describing our universe! In other words, suppose there is a "real" universe out there, but it isn't ours. Would we then expect that we shouldn't feel anything when we kick the stone, that our foot should just pass through it because it has no substance to resist? No, because we are part of the equations too. Whatever the ontological status of the stone may be, our status is the same because we're part of the same equations. Therefore it will feel _to us_ like the stone is real, even if an omniscient external observer would say "you're under an illusion, you're not real at all, only that universe over there is real". Of course we can then discard the notion of the external observer and "that universe over there" if we choose, and simply note that we must necessarily perceive objects that are part of the same set of equations as we are, to be real. In other words, "part of the same set of equations as we are" is just what we meant all along by the word "real"; the notion that that set of equations might not be real is therefore a logical self-contradiction, and the answer to the original question is "mu". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue Mar 6 04:26:53 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:26:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing References: <364889.5031.qm@web37408.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey: >> If you imagine the "condition" of nothingness where... gts: > Problem for me is, I cannot imagine nothing no matter what conditions you > might try to ascribe to it. > > T'aint possible for anyone to imagine nothing, I say, because to imagine > anything is to imagine something. And any kind of something is not nothing. I don't think imagining something is a necessary condition for that something to exist. Nothing does not become something just because imagining nothing is something in itself. I doubt our thoughts have the power to influence reality. It's easy for me to imagine nothingness (absence of everything). That doesn't mean that nothingness is even possible. Again, thoughts alone do not appear to alter physical laws or whether they exist or not. But that is obviously different from "subjective nothingness" which is not only possible but happens all the time when our brains disintegrate. I see no reason to doubt that subjective experience after death is not equivalent to subjective experience at potential nothingness. H. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 6 05:30:29 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:30:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703051953y507b9831p5ebf4aa2f5a0b25a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <330623.78662.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Russell Wallace wrote: > Would we? Suppose we weren't? > > Phrased that way, that doesn't sound like it makes > sense, so let's use > Hawking's rephrasing of the original question: "What > is it that breathes > fire into the equations and makes a universe for > them to describe?" Perhaps the equations themselves breath fire into the universe. > In other words, "part of the same set of equations > as we are" is just what > we meant all along by the word "real"; the notion > that that set of equations > might not be real is therefore a logical > self-contradiction, and the answer > to the original question is "mu". Your argument is right on. Except I call mu OM. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail From citta437 at aol.com Mon Mar 5 15:23:54 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:23:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The meme of transhumanism Message-ID: <8C92D516B91AD73-12E4-D614@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> "> gts: "All evolution, from the physical and biological to the mental and > cultural, can then be seen as a single contiguous process involving the > growth of knowledge." > > Me: I agree seen in that perspective. Some knowledge like beliefs and > dogmas remain in a state of potent energy which can lead to entropy > instead of extropy. gts: "Sorry, I have no idea what that means, either." My reply : Memes/knowledge behave like genes according to Richard Dawkins in that both processes involved replication. The former{meme/knowledge} revolves around the world inhabiting the minds prone to infection of such ideas; during that process some ideas are replicated/tested as the case maybe. Transhumanism is a meme yet to be tested in the world of ideas to see if it works to liberate the mind from psychological stress. If this meme's objective is extropy, why does it proclaims itself as absolutely infallible in connection with science when the latter does not claim absolute infallibility? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From citta437 at aol.com Mon Mar 5 15:23:58 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:23:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The meme of transhumanism Message-ID: <8C92D516E451BEF-12E4-D616@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> "> gts: "All evolution, from the physical and biological to the mental and > cultural, can then be seen as a single contiguous process involving the > growth of knowledge." > > Me: I agree seen in that perspective. Some knowledge like beliefs and > dogmas remain in a state of potent energy which can lead to entropy > instead of extropy. gts: "Sorry, I have no idea what that means, either." My reply : Memes/knowledge behave like genes according to Richard Dawkins in that both processes involved replication. The former{meme/knowledge} revolves around the world inhabiting the minds prone to infection of such ideas; during that process some ideas are replicated/tested as the case maybe. Transhumanism is a meme yet to be tested in the world of ideas to see if it works to liberate the mind from psychological stress. If this meme's objective is extropy, why does it proclaims itself as absolutely infallible in connection with science when the latter does not claim absolute infallibility? Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From citta437 at aol.com Mon Mar 5 16:30:10 2007 From: citta437 at aol.com (citta437 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:30:10 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Uncertainty Principle in Zen Message-ID: <8C92D5AADCC92D5-12E4-DA22@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Below is a part of a message from yesterday's post by someone: "So, as you can see, it is a typical 'Zen' scenario, and it is not easy to be completely 'aware' of the UP, since it is more misanthropic than anthropic." My reply: Thanks for your comprehensive analysis of the issue arising from the anthropic and misanthropic application of the Uncertainty Principle. In Zen, training the mind to be aware of the dualism between self and no-self is a test of the Uncertainty Principle/randomness which is the essential teaching of "Emptiness" as a state of possibility. Thoughts and desires arise from the mind and this lead to psychological stress only when the self sees the mind as the sole arbiter of truth. I see why the practice of awareness cannot be completely misanthropic due to the difficulty of some practitioner's pattern of anthropic thinking. Some schools of Zen Buddhism use Koans to brake this pattern but others rely completely on meditation to clear the mind while some Mahayanists school advocate the Bodhisattva ideal to address suffering by dealing directly with it with no concern about the certainty or uncertainty {presumptions}of future results. When dealing with the psyche, think non-thinking according to my Zen master. This suggestion is compatible with doing away the anthropic way of thinking. Terry ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 12:22:54 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:22:54 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mind mapping software Message-ID: I thought this free software opportunity might be of interest to some here. ConceptDraw MINDMAP 4 is a mind-mapping and team brainstorming tool with extended drawing capabilities. Use it to efficiently organize your ideas and tasks with the help of Mind Mapping technique. ConceptDraw MINDMAP 4 supports extra file formats, multi-page documents. It offers a rich collection of pre-drawn shapes. ConceptDraw MINDMAP 4 has extended capabilities for creating web sites and PowerPoint presentations. This software is temporarily available for free. ***** But you must download and install it within the next 19 hours. ****** Restrictions for the free edition. 1. No free technical support 2. No free upgrades to future versions 3. Strictly non-commercial usage Normal price 119 USD. BillK From sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no Tue Mar 6 13:49:03 2007 From: sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:49:03 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mind mapping software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B619FF7E@webmail.sensetech.no> Thanks for the heads up! I have previously used MindJet's MindManager a lot, but this seems to have very similar functionality. It does have some issues with Windows Vista, but it works fine after you manually change the settings a few times and restarts the application. I forwarded the word to my fellow Microsoft Regional Directors (some of the most brilliant minds in my industry (it/software)) and I'm sure they'll enjoy it as much as me. Thanks again, Sondre -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 1:23 PM To: Extropy Chat Subject: [extropy-chat] Mind mapping software I thought this free software opportunity might be of interest to some here. ConceptDraw MINDMAP 4 is a mind-mapping and team brainstorming tool with extended drawing capabilities. Use it to efficiently organize your ideas and tasks with the help of Mind Mapping technique. ConceptDraw MINDMAP 4 supports extra file formats, multi-page documents. It offers a rich collection of pre-drawn shapes. ConceptDraw MINDMAP 4 has extended capabilities for creating web sites and PowerPoint presentations. This software is temporarily available for free. ***** But you must download and install it within the next 19 hours. ****** Restrictions for the free edition. 1. No free technical support 2. No free upgrades to future versions 3. Strictly non-commercial usage Normal price 119 USD. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ********************************************************************** This e-mail has been scanned for viruses and found clean. ********************************************************************** From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 6 14:05:06 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:05:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mind mapping software In-Reply-To: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B619FF7E@webmail.sensetech.no> References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B619FF7E@webmail.sensetech.no> Message-ID: <20070306140506.GK31912@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:49:03PM +0100, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > I forwarded the word to my fellow Microsoft Regional Directors (some of the most brilliant minds in my industry (it/software)) and I'm sure they'll enjoy it as much as me. No offense, but I very much doubt the most brilliant minds in the industry are working for Microsoft. *Everybody* is claiming to hire the top 1%. And everybody claims they're succeeding, too. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no Tue Mar 6 14:10:27 2007 From: sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:10:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mind mapping software In-Reply-To: <20070306140506.GK31912@leitl.org> References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B619FF7E@webmail.sensetech.no> <20070306140506.GK31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B619FF88@webmail.sensetech.no> Regional Directors does not work for Microsoft :) We work for independent companies, but are nominated for the RD program for our contribution the the industry in our countries and abroad: http://www.microsoft.com/rd/ Regards, Sondre -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 3:05 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Mind mapping software On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:49:03PM +0100, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > I forwarded the word to my fellow Microsoft Regional Directors (some of the most brilliant minds in my industry (it/software)) and I'm sure they'll enjoy it as much as me. No offense, but I very much doubt the most brilliant minds in the industry are working for Microsoft. *Everybody* is claiming to hire the top 1%. And everybody claims they're succeeding, too. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ********************************************************************** This e-mail has been scanned for viruses and found clean. ********************************************************************** From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 6 14:27:50 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:27:50 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Top 1% In-Reply-To: <20070306140506.GK31912@leitl.org> References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B619FF7E@webmail.sensetech.no> <20070306140506.GK31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <2251.163.1.72.81.1173191270.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Eugen Leitl wrote: > No offense, but I very much doubt the most brilliant minds > in the industry are working for Microsoft. *Everybody* is claiming > to hire the top 1%. And everybody claims they're succeeding, too. Sure they can! Just select the top 1% of the people applying to you, and you can honestly say you have hired the top 1%. Who cares that it is not the *overall* 1%? :-) Assuming everybody pulls equally strongly, we should expect that the most brilliant minds are most likely to work in the largest companies. So there ought to be 76,000/17,787 = 4.27 times more brilliant minds at Microsoft than Apple. Google ought to have 0.14 times the number of geniuses as Apple. IBM 4.68 times more than Microsoft. However, I doubt the pulling equally strongly assumption is true. But given the rarity of extreme talent and that it may be tricky to reliably attract I still think the size does matter - the law of large numbers almost always wins. Whether the top 1% actually help much is another matter. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 6 14:14:12 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:14:12 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] The meme of transhumanism In-Reply-To: <8C92D516E451BEF-12E4-D616@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92D516E451BEF-12E4-D616@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <2207.163.1.72.81.1173190452.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> citta437 at aol.com wrote: > Transhumanism is a meme yet to be tested in the world of ideas to see > if it works to liberate the mind from psychological stress. If this > meme's objective is extropy, why does it proclaims itself as absolutely > infallible in connection with science when the latter does not claim > absolute infallibility? Actually it isn't. When this list was founded in the early 90's there was a long-running debate on the proper epistemology for transhumanism, with pancritical rationalism one of the heavy contenders. See http://www.maxmore.com/pcr.htm Since then we may have been less philosophically heavyweight but the consensus seems to be pretty firm that science pragmatically works, and since we want transhumanism to work, then we better align ourselves with science. A lot of interest has also gone into understanding the limits of human (and transhuman) reasoning, see for example http://www.overcomingbias.com/ Maybe transhumanism sometimes does sound like it assumes its own or science's infallibility. In that case it is badly argued. If magical rituals could reliably produce desired effects or if the laws of physics changed every tuesday transhumanism would still be a worthwhile endeavour. [ Maybe it is time to go back to the philosophical heavyweight issues? Anybody up for a discussion of deontological vs. consequentialist transhumanism? With reasoning under uncertainty? ] -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 6 14:40:12 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:40:12 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Top 1% In-Reply-To: <2251.163.1.72.81.1173191270.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B619FF7E@webmail.sensetech.no> <20070306140506.GK31912@leitl.org> <2251.163.1.72.81.1173191270.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <2265.163.1.72.81.1173192012.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Ought to have read this before posting: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/you_are_not_hir.html -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 6 14:43:17 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:43:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Top 1% In-Reply-To: <2251.163.1.72.81.1173191270.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B619FF7E@webmail.sensetech.no> <20070306140506.GK31912@leitl.org> <2251.163.1.72.81.1173191270.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20070306144317.GL31912@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 03:27:50PM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Sure they can! Just select the top 1% of the people applying to you, and > you can honestly say you have hired the top 1%. Who cares that it is not But that's not what they're claiming, of course. > the *overall* 1%? :-) > > Assuming everybody pulls equally strongly, we should expect that the most One hell of an assumption. Top talent chooses *very* carefully where it is going. > brilliant minds are most likely to work in the largest companies. So there Not necessarily, depends on the distribution. You're probably correct, though. > ought to be 76,000/17,787 = 4.27 times more brilliant minds at Microsoft > than Apple. Google ought to have 0.14 times the number of geniuses as > Apple. IBM 4.68 times more than Microsoft. However, I doubt the pulling My guess is that they're neither at Microsoft, Google, Apple, or IBM. > equally strongly assumption is true. But given the rarity of extreme > talent and that it may be tricky to reliably attract I still think the > size does matter - the law of large numbers almost always wins. > > Whether the top 1% actually help much is another matter. At least in IT there is a very large difference between top talent and merely average. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Mar 6 14:20:54 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:20:54 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The meme of transhumanism In-Reply-To: <8C92D516E451BEF-12E4-D616@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C92D516E451BEF-12E4-D616@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070306081330.03c8c788@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:23 AM 3/5/2007, Terry wrote: >Transhumanism is a meme yet to be tested in the world of ideas to see >if it works to liberate the mind from psychological stress. If this >meme's objective is extropy, why does it proclaims itself as absolutely >infallible in connection with science when the latter does not claim >absolute infallibility? Infallibility? I think you have missed the point of both transhumanism and extropy. A beneficial method for learning and gaining knowledge is through trial and error. Problem solving, at its near best, is achieved through testing theories and extracting what seems to work and then taking that protocol further. Because we are living in an ever changing environment, the very concept of perfect or perfection (or what you may be assuming to be absolute infallibility) is a misnomer because achieving such state would mean a stasis - and stasis is not an environment conducive to learning and growth. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue Mar 6 15:11:33 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:11:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mind mapping software Message-ID: A more versatile (not fixed to Microsoft) solution. Resending a message I wrote May 8, 2006 to the wta-talk list under the subject title: "Advice Sought on Improving Reading and Studying Skills" Amara ------------------------------------------------------ Sean Cooney scooney at purdue.edu : Welcome Sean! >My goal is to reduce my studying time as much as possible without loss >of comprehension or retention. Those last two points are critical. I >am in a very technical field of study (molecular biology, biochemistry, >neurobiology). Thus, any reduction in studying time without maintaining >or improving comprehension and retention is pointless. A few weeks ago a friend introduced me to "mind mapping". I'd heard for years about it, but no one ever demonstrated its usefulness to me before. Since I'm wrestling with a particularly complex problem for one of my research problems ("the origin of water on Earth"), I thought I'd "map" it out. Now, I'm mapping out all of the arguments in the relevant papers this way, as well as my own work on the subject, and I'm very happy with how I'm able to follow the arguments using this tool. I think that "mind mapping" is an excellent study and note-taking tool. The following graphic is a real example of my breaking down the arguments in one recent paper on this topic using mind mapping: http://www.amara.com/SourceofWateronEarth.jpg I don't agree with all of the authors' arguments, but this way helps me to follow them. The little circles represent collapsed subjects. The icon of a notepad/pen tells me that there is a note, in my case, a reference. There are arrows to link many of the arguments to the constraints, but the lines are barely visible; the software doesn't allow me to fiddle with the arrow-line width yet. The software I used is an open source "mind mapping" package called "FreeMind". There are slicker commercial software to do this, but they cost money, and this is good enough. FreeMind is available for Windows, Linux/Unix, Mac. http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Mind Mapping in 8 Steps (to get you started) http://www.thinksmart.com/mission/workout/mindmapping_intro.html 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 natasha at natasha.cc Tue Mar 6 14:26:26 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:26:26 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mind mapping software In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070306082318.03ee85d8@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 06:22 AM 3/6/2007, BillK wrote: >I thought this free software opportunity might be of interest to some here. > >ConceptDraw MINDMAP 4 is a mind-mapping and team brainstorming tool >with extended drawing capabilities. > >Use it to efficiently organize your ideas and tasks with the help of >Mind Mapping technique. ConceptDraw MINDMAP 4 supports extra file >formats, multi-page documents. It offers a rich collection of >pre-drawn shapes. ConceptDraw MINDMAP 4 has extended capabilities for >creating web sites and PowerPoint presentations. I just purchased Ovation for PowerPoint. It's not great. I look forward to trying Mindmap4 out. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium 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 Tue Mar 6 16:05:31 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:05:31 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The meme of transhumanism In-Reply-To: <2207.163.1.72.81.1173190452.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <8C92D516E451BEF-12E4-D616@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> <2207.163.1.72.81.1173190452.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 3/6/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > [ Maybe it is time to go back to the philosophical heavyweight issues? > Anybody up for a discussion of deontological vs. consequentialist > transhumanism? With reasoning under uncertainty? ] "I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game." -- Val Kilmer in Tombstone - Jef From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 6 15:01:41 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:01:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The meme of transhumanism In-Reply-To: <8C92D516B91AD73-12E4-D614@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070306093845.0e1f13d8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:23 AM 3/5/2007 -0500, Terry wrote: snip >My reply : Memes/knowledge behave like genes according to Richard >Dawkins in that both processes involved replication. Taken cautiously, that's correct. Replication, variation and selection are of course the processes of evolution. snip >Transhumanism is a meme yet to be tested in the world of ideas to see >if it works to liberate the mind from psychological stress. I think you miss the point of memes and genes. While there *is* a feedback from reality, memes and genes are "successful" or not based on how well they spread. It isn't a measure of the success of a meme to "liberate the mind from psychological stress." Quite the opposite can occur as when Dawkins talks about the co-propagate of the god/hellfire memes. >If this >meme's objective is extropy, why does it proclaims itself as absolutely >infallible in connection with science when the latter does not claim >absolute infallibility? I was not aware that extropy and/or transhumanism claimed "absolute infallibility." Do you have a source for this remarkable claim? Keith Henson From scerir at libero.it Tue Mar 6 19:22:27 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 20:22:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Uncertainty Principle in Zen References: <8C92D5AADCC92D5-12E4-DA22@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <000601c76024$c7571290$e2be1f97@archimede> Terry: > In Zen, training the mind to be aware of the dualism between self and > no-self is a test of the Uncertainty Principle/randomness which is the > essential teaching of "Emptiness" as a state of possibility. Well, it is true that Bohr said: "For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealisations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tse have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence". (N.Bohr: "Celebrazione del Secondo Centenario della Nascita di Luigi Galvani -Bologna- 18-21 Ottobre 1937-XV"). And it is also true that a huge chapter of an intense book http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6681.html http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6681.pdf by Max Jammer is devoted, entirely, to the eastern philosophies and modern physics (pages and pages of references inside that chapter). But I do not think that the two fields have much more in common than some superficial similarity. Maybe here http://links.jstor.org/sici? sici=0024-094X(1988)21%3A3%3C313%3ACARWAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E http://links.jstor.org/sici? sici=0004-3249(196621)25%3A3%3C246%3ACARWAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q you can read an amusing correspondence between Paul Laporte and Einstein, about the supposed similarity between SR and ... cubism. (Paul Laporte did not know the superposition principle, which has something to do with the 'analytical' cubism). As for your 'state of possibility' you can indeed find many good 'implementations' in quantum theory. Ie, it is well known the Heisenberg doctrine of 'potentia' (reminiscent of Aristotle). It is also well known that what we call the outcome of a quantum measurement of some observable A in general does not depend only on the observable A itself and on the state of the quantum system. It also depends, on the measurements we could, in principle, perform on some other observable B, even when B and A are commuting. But the above 'implementations' are not the incarnation of Zen, in the quantum domain. And the UP is not what makes Zen so attractive. s. 'It was tacitly assumed that measurement of an observable must yield the same value independently of what other [compatible] measurements may be made simultaneously ... There is no a priori reason to believe that the results should be the same.' -John Bell, Rev.Mod.Phys., 38 (1966) 447. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 00:54:12 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 16:54:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <330623.78662.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <473035.16638.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Although if one wanted to be pedantic about it, one might argue that even mathematics cannot exist in the void of nothingness, but only as a product of creation so to speak. I hope perpetuating this thread doesn't annoy too many people :-) Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --- The Avantguardian wrote: > > --- Russell Wallace > wrote: > > > Would we? Suppose we weren't? > > > > Phrased that way, that doesn't sound like it makes > > sense, so let's use > > Hawking's rephrasing of the original question: > "What > > is it that breathes > > fire into the equations and makes a universe for > > them to describe?" > > Perhaps the equations themselves breath fire into > the > universe. > > > In other words, "part of the same set of equations > > as we are" is just what > > we meant all along by the word "real"; the notion > > that that set of equations > > might not be real is therefore a logical > > self-contradiction, and the answer > > to the original question is "mu". > > Your argument is right on. Except I call mu OM. > > > Stuart LaForge > alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu > > "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at > least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm > through my experimenting with it, it is I who > suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 7 06:42:49 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:42:49 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070307004025.021c74c8@satx.rr.com> France Bans Citizen Journalists From Reporting Violence PETER SAYER - IDG News Service The French Constitutional Council has approved a law that criminalizes the filming or broadcasting of acts of violence by people other than professional journalists. The law could lead to the imprisonment of eyewitnesses who film acts of police violence, or operators of Web sites publishing the images, one French civil liberties group warned on Tuesday. The council chose an unfortunate anniversary to publish its decision approving the law, which came exactly 16 years after Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers' acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles. If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law, said Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi. And anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of ???75,000 (US$98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act. Senators and members of the National Assembly had asked the council to rule on the constitutionality of six articles of the Law relating to the prevention of delinquency. The articles dealt with information sharing by social workers, and reduced sentences for minors. The council recommended one minor change, to reconcile conflicting amendments voted in parliament. The law, proposed by Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, is intended to clamp down on a wide range of public order offenses. During parliamentary debate of the law, government representatives said the offense of filming or distributing films of acts of violence targets the practice of 'happy slapping,' in which a violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker's friends. The broad drafting of the law so as to criminalize the activities of citizen journalists unrelated to the perpetrators of violent acts is no accident, but rather a deliberate decision by the authorities, said Cohet. He is concerned that the law, and others still being debated, will lead to the creation of a parallel judicial system controlling the publication of information on the Internet. The government has also proposed a certification system for Web sites, blog hosters, mobile-phone operators and Internet service providers, identifying them as government-approved sources of information if they adhere to certain rules. The journalists' organization Reporters Without Borders, which campaigns for a free press, has warned that such a system could lead to excessive self censorship as organizations worried about losing their certification suppress certain stories. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 7 07:13:19 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 23:13:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070307004025.021c74c8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > If Holliday were to film a similar scene of > violence in France today, he could end up in > prison as a result of the new law, said Pascal > Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil > liberties group Odebi. And anyone publishing such > images could face up to five years in prison and > a fine of ???75,000 (US$98,537), potentially a > harsher sentence than that for committing the > violent act. Whoa. So much for France's liberal image. Seems like the only thing the left and right have in common these days are the facist sentiments of their respective power brokers. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 From pj at pj-manney.com Wed Mar 7 21:45:40 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:45:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Colbert Report: J. Craig Venter Message-ID: <24774120.47761173303940181.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> My funny for the day: Monsieur Colbert and J. Craig Venter http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=82848 PJ From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Thu Mar 8 03:02:17 2007 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:02:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] Roadmap of the 21st Century Message-ID: <20070308030218.46184.qmail@web32806.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear friends, I highly recommend this website, with a great short video, about the roadmap for the 21st century, developed by Peter Pesti at Georgia Tech: http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~pesti/roadmap/ Enjoy it... Futuristically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From charlie at antipope.org Thu Mar 8 12:27:04 2007 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:27:04 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45F00118.8030005@antipope.org> The Avantguardian wrote: > --- Damien Broderick wrote: > >> If Holliday were to film a similar scene of >> violence in France today, he could end up in >> prison > Whoa. So much for France's liberal image. 1. The French establishment is not and never has been "liberal" in the sense of current American usage. 2. What the news article Damien cited did *not* mention was that this law was an attempt to deal with the problem of "happy slapping" which seems to have crossed the channel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping Not a terribly nice activity -- indeed, one which already involves criminal behaviour -- but in this case I think it's fairly clear that the French law is a badly-drafted and heavy-handed approach. Possibly something to do with it being an election year, and Sarkozy (the current French PM) running for president on a law'n'order ticket. -- Charlie From charlie at antipope.org Thu Mar 8 12:32:11 2007 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:32:11 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Top 1% In-Reply-To: <2251.163.1.72.81.1173191270.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B619FF7E@webmail.sensetech.no> <20070306140506.GK31912@leitl.org> <2251.163.1.72.81.1173191270.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <45F0024B.8050706@antipope.org> Anders Sandberg wrote: > Sure they can! Just select the top 1% of the people applying to you, and > you can honestly say you have hired the top 1%. Who cares that it is not > the *overall* 1%? :-) > > Assuming everybody pulls equally strongly, we should expect that the most > brilliant minds are most likely to work in the largest companies. Flawed assumption: the assumption in question is that recruitment relies on "pull" rather than push. Smart geeks are often poorly socialized, but to survive and prosper in a large corporate environment requires social skills (cf. "sucking up to management"). Also, you have to get past the HR gatekeepers before you can get the job -- and HR folks tend to be socially skilled but not necessarily good at identifying genius as opposed to chaff. So it's quite possible that many of the largest companies are selecting out the brilliant minds before they get to the interview stage, and if they accidentally recruit them, end up providing an inhospitable environment. I'll concede the possibility that some cutting-edge companies are different (think: Google, Microsoft, Apple, Craig Venter's company, whatever) but that's almost certainly less than 10% of the work force. -- Charlie From jay.dugger at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 14:31:36 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:31:36 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: <45F00118.8030005@antipope.org> References: <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <45F00118.8030005@antipope.org> Message-ID: <5366105b0703080631i7838f6fal4df1f98e774dda64@mail.gmail.com> 1. Agreed 2. Yes, it did mention "happy slapping." "During parliamentary debate of the law, government representatives said the offense of filming or distributing films of acts of violence targets the practice of 'happy slapping,' in which a violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker's friends." 3. Nice work on "The Jennifer Morgue." -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Mar 8 17:03:50 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:03:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: <45F00118.8030005@antipope.org> References: <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070308115630.0e191fb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:27 PM 3/8/2007 +0000, Charlie Stross wrote: snip >2. What the news article Damien cited did *not* mention was that this >law was an attempt to deal with the problem of "happy slapping" which >seems to have crossed the channel. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping That is really bizarre. Though I guess it could have been expected by analogy to other acts such as recording sexual encounters. I wonder what else might be expected to crop up in the interaction of high tech with stone age brains? Keith Henson From charlie at antipope.org Thu Mar 8 17:21:07 2007 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:21:07 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070308115630.0e191fb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070308115630.0e191fb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <45F04603.4020901@antipope.org> Keith Henson wrote: > That is really bizarre. > > Though I guess it could have been expected by analogy to other acts such as > recording sexual encounters. > > I wonder what else might be expected to crop up in the interaction of high > tech with stone age brains? Use of mobile phones and social networking websites for bullying is a current topic of some concern in the British school system(s). AIUI the ban on camera phones in Saudi Arabia a few years ago wasn't a western-style moral panic about upskirt shots, but a response to the (hushed-up) rape, on camera, of a Saudi princess, on the orders of a princeling whose advances she'd rejected -- in an honour-based society that's pretty heavy stuff, and I hope I don't have to lay out the likely social consequences of it catching on. I'm perpetually confused by the degree to which lots of folks -- especially in the US, which had ubiquitous land-lines before mobile phones (in contrast to stodgy Europe, which went mobile faster precisely because of the monolithic status of the existing entrenched national telcos) -- fsil to recognize the social implications of mobile phones, which link people, as opposed to land lines, which link locations. Next up on the block: within a decade I expect we'll be forgetting what it's like to be lost, and the next generation will *never* know what it's like to be lost. Ubiquitous location services are now showing up embedded in mobile phones, car navigation systems and GPS, and receivers are getting cheaper and more accurate all the time. What are the implications of *that*? The only comparison I've got is the way pocket calculators drove out slide rules and log tables in the 70s. You can see the consequences today whenever you go into a store and the drone behind the cash register can't verify the amount they're charging you because they don't have the basic arithemtic skills to check the machine -- into which they can introduce keystroke errors. And you can see it more broadly in disasters like that Mars probe that JPL and NASA contrived to drop a few years ago because one site was working in metric and the other in imperial units. But the concept of paper maps and compasses and the basic ability to orient onesself in a strange place being lost -- that's weirding me out. -- Charlie From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Mar 8 17:26:53 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:26:53 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070308115630.0e191fb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <45F00118.8030005@antipope.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070308115630.0e191fb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 3/8/07, Keith Henson wrote: > At 12:27 PM 3/8/2007 +0000, Charlie Stross wrote: > > snip > > >2. What the news article Damien cited did *not* mention was that this > >law was an attempt to deal with the problem of "happy slapping" which > >seems to have crossed the channel. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping > > That is really bizarre. > > Though I guess it could have been expected by analogy to other acts such as > recording sexual encounters. > > I wonder what else might be expected to crop up in the interaction of high > tech with stone age brains? It seems to me that *all* of our deepest evolved drives can be expressed via modern technology. On balance, this is quite encouraging since there's a general negative correlation between fitness and depravity. On a similar note, have others noticed that virtually all spam and phishing attempts contain obvious errors of spelling and grammar ? (I'm not talking about the intentionally creative spellings intended to confuse the anti-spam systems.) Is this not a strongly encouraging sign that spam and similar abuse of the commons appears to be very strongly correlated with lower intelligence and thus lower fitness in a world of accelerating intelligence? - Jef From charlie at antipope.org Thu Mar 8 17:45:24 2007 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:45:24 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: References: <694719.49325.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> <45F00118.8030005@antipope.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20070308115630.0e191fb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <45F04BB4.5070205@antipope.org> Jef Allbright wrote: > On a similar note, have others noticed that virtually all spam and > phishing attempts contain obvious errors of spelling and grammar ? > (I'm not talking about the intentionally creative spellings intended > to confuse the anti-spam systems.) Is this not a strongly encouraging > sign that spam and similar abuse of the commons appears to be very > strongly correlated with lower intelligence and thus lower fitness in > a world of accelerating intelligence? No, it's a sign that spam filters search for certain keywords (such as the names of various medications and slang terms for sexual practices) so the spammers are gaming our ability to recognize mis-spelled words. It's an arms race that will only end with Turing-test-passing spam filters and spambots that are smarter than the average Nigerian con-man -- and Nigerian con-men are *smart*. (If only they'd put their creative energy into doing something productive ...!) -- Charlie From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 8 17:53:41 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:53:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV tonight in SF Bay Area Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> Edwin C. May, Ph.D., formerly of the classified STAR GATE project and now running the Laboratories for Fundamental Research (www.LFR.ORG), tells me that in the SF Bay Area, A&E have scheduled a program tonight on psi precognition in which Joe McMoneagle and May participated. March 8 at 10:pm. I've been impressed by detailed accounts of McMoneagle's remote viewing exploits. Perhaps anyone living there whose curiosity is piqued might watch and report back...? Damien Broderick From pj at pj-manney.com Thu Mar 8 21:20:20 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:20:20 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV tonight in SF Bay Area Message-ID: <2556281.34781173388820817.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >Damien Broderick wrote: >Edwin C. May, Ph.D., formerly of the classified STAR GATE project and >now running the Laboratories for Fundamental Research (www.LFR.ORG), >tells me that in the SF Bay Area, A&E have scheduled a program >tonight on psi precognition in which Joe McMoneagle and May >participated. March 8 at 10:pm. I've been impressed by detailed >accounts of McMoneagle's remote viewing exploits. Perhaps anyone >living there whose curiosity is piqued might watch and report back...? A&E is a national cable network and is usually part of a basic cable/satellite package. It's playing nationwide tonight, as well as tomorrow night. Upcoming Airings: Thursday, March 08 @ 10pm/9C Friday, March 09 @ 2am/1C http://www.aetv.com/listings/episode_details.do?episodeid=213144&airingid=213778 PJ From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 22:36:32 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:36:32 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The meme of transhumanism In-Reply-To: <2207.163.1.72.81.1173190452.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <8C92D516E451BEF-12E4-D616@webmail-me13.sysops.aol.com> <2207.163.1.72.81.1173190452.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <62c14240703081436y6488b6dbw6cec06606bba0ecc@mail.gmail.com> On 3/6/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > [ Maybe it is time to go back to the philosophical heavyweight issues? > Anybody up for a discussion of deontological vs. consequentialist > transhumanism? With reasoning under uncertainty? ] given that we don't necessarily have consensus on the ends, it would be hard to justify arbitrary means, so i guess conservative progress would have to be made deontologically? arbitrary means: those randomly but distinctly selected for discussion. Perhaps this would end up categorizing a class of behaviors rather than any particular 'rightness' of action. conservative progress: with increasing command of our physical environment, the potential for existential disaster should provide a sobering point of reflection about what means we employ to reach those 'ends'. Progress must surely be pursued without blindly rushing forward. What would be the point of diving headlong into the Singularity only to realize we missed an important lesson in the maturation process of our species. From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Mar 8 22:51:46 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:51:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <473035.16638.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <330623.78662.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> <473035.16638.qm@web37407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240703081451r64ac42cndb651e781629d818@mail.gmail.com> On 3/6/07, A B wrote: > > Although if one wanted to be pedantic about it, one > might argue that even mathematics cannot exist in the > void of nothingness, but only as a product of creation > so to speak. I hope perpetuating this thread doesn't > annoy too many people :-) is that void the absense of something, or the something in potential? if something is that which is known, and it's opposite (nothing) is the unknown - can that which is unknown be explored to give rise to new realms of the knowable? In that case the void would represent potential for something to become manifest, while at the same time be defined as what remains unknown after some potential is made 'real' clearly, it doesn't annoy me. From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 8 23:32:12 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:32:12 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] greenpeace doesn't like ethanol either In-Reply-To: <62c14240703081451r64ac42cndb651e781629d818@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200703082344.l28NiS1e017084@andromeda.ziaspace.com> This news item http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/03/08/bush.protests.ap/index.html contained this comment: "Fearing that Brazil may clear pristine jungle to increase sugarcane cultivation for ethanol, Greenpeace activists hung a huge banner warning against increased reliance on ethanol as an alternative fuel." I wasn't aware that Greenpeace (of all people) were against ethanol from sugar cane. OK so let's see, I can almost make a poem out of it: They don't like oil, they don't like coal, oh god, no nukes, and no ethanol. With photovoltaics Don't pave the land, Windmills slay birds, Just reduce power demand. OK so I'm no poet, but for crying out loud, do these folks have a suggestion? Are there any power sources they endorse? Are we to simply die? That would reduce power demand, but somehow that solution lacks appeal. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 8 23:44:56 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:44:56 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: greenpeace doesn't like ethanol either Message-ID: <200703082355.l28NtTML025720@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Subject: greenpeace doesn't like ethanol either ... I wasn't aware that Greenpeace (of all people) were against ethanol from sugar cane. OK so let's see, I can almost make a poem out of it: They don't like oil, they don't like coal, oh god, no nukes, and no ethanol. ... ...do these folks have a suggestion? ...spike Oops my information was out of date. Greenpeace likes nukes now: http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-goes-nuc lear.html I have long been an ethanol fan, but in the long run I actually think the nuke people are right on. spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Mar 9 00:25:34 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:25:34 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: greenpeace doesn't like ethanol either In-Reply-To: <200703082355.l28NtTML025720@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200703082355.l28NtTML025720@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 3/8/07, spike wrote: > Oops my information was out of date. Greenpeace likes nukes now: > http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-goes-nuc > lear.html > > I have long been an ethanol fan, but in the long run I actually think the > nuke people are right on. He's not a supporter of Greenpeace now. Greenpeace are anti nuclear power. Greenpeace are also in favour of wind farms. Yes, they admit that a few birds are killed by windmills, but global warming is reckoned to be a far greater threat to bird populations. In the UK about 10 million birds are killed by cars every year. And cars kill many animals too, as well as birds. (And humans also, of course). The Greenpeace web site says they support: Energy efficiency. (insulation, economy cars, etc.) Wind power Solar power Geothermal power Some types of bioenergy Hydroelectric power (wave power and river power). BillK From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 9 01:16:25 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:16:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: greenpeace doesn't like ethanol either In-Reply-To: <200703082355.l28NtTML025720@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070308191412.03f81148@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:44 PM 3/8/2007 -0800, spike wrote: snip >...do these folks have a suggestion? ...spike > >Oops my information was out of date. Greenpeace likes nukes now: > >http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-goes-nuc >lear.html > >I have long been an ethanol fan, but in the long run I actually think the >nuke people are right on. Will you still be saying this after a container ship with a 25 kt super high grade plutonium nuke blows up at the Oakland docks? Keith From jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 03:34:34 2007 From: jose_cordeiro at yahoo.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 19:34:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] TRANSHUMANIST VIDEOS Message-ID: <20070309033434.78368.qmail@web32801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear transhumanist friends: A friend from Puerto Rico, Andr?s Col?n, has begun a marvelous effort to compile a collection of transhumanist videos:-) Some people say that "a picture is worth a thousand words" and a video must then be at least a million words. Therefore, I absolutely recommend that you visit this excellent web page that will change history, will change the future, will change humanity, and will change posthumanity: http://www.thoughtw are.tv/ If you have some good videos to show, please, send them to Andr?s: andres at purenova.com. From Puerto Rico to the world... from the world to the universe... from this universe to the multiverse... Transhumanistically yours, La vie est belle! Yos? (www.cordeiro.org) Caracas, Venezuela, Americas, TerraNostra, Solar System, Milky Way, Multiverse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 9 04:22:00 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:22:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: <45F00118.8030005@antipope.org> Message-ID: <357593.21493.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> --- Charlie Stross wrote: > 2. What the news article Damien cited did *not* > mention was that this > law was an attempt to deal with the problem of > "happy slapping" which > seems to have crossed the channel. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping > > Not a terribly nice activity -- indeed, one which > already involves > criminal behaviour -- but in this case I think it's > fairly clear that > the French law is a badly-drafted and heavy-handed > approach. Possibly > something to do with it being an election year, and > Sarkozy (the current > French PM) running for president on a law'n'order > ticket. Agreed its not nice behavior but the very videos that they are outlawing are the evidence that could get the happy-slappers, who are apparently mostly teenagers, convicted. Crime is crime whether it is recorded or not. Outlawing the recording makes little sense from a "law'n'order" perspective and seems irrational enough to make you wonder what the true purpose of the law really is. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ From pj at pj-manney.com Fri Mar 9 06:20:29 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:20:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Colbert Report: Mark Frauenfelder of Make Magazine Message-ID: <22596260.73091173421229154.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Make Magazine = Martha Stewart's Living for Geeks... Stephen breaks Mark's robotic mouse! Best line: "We all have our favorite roboticists." http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=83321 PJ From charlie at antipope.org Fri Mar 9 09:01:15 2007 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:01:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: <357593.21493.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> References: <357593.21493.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45F1225B.9020106@antipope.org> The Avantguardian wrote: > > Agreed its not nice behavior but the very videos that they are > outlawing are the evidence that could get the happy-slappers, who are > apparently mostly teenagers, convicted. Crime is crime whether it is > recorded or not. Outlawing the recording makes little sense from a > "law'n'order" perspective and seems irrational enough to make you > wonder what the true purpose of the law really is. I'm not sure you're clear on the point; "happy slapping" is the practice of recording one of your friends assaulting a random stranger. Making the recording and passing it around your delinquent friends is the whole point of it: the recording is the motive for the assault. Without the intention of creating the record, the assault almost certainly wouldn't take place. *That's* what they're trying to outlaw (and missed by a mile, because it's a distinction that a lot of people don't get): they need some wording along the lines of "... it is an offense to make a recording of an act of violence when the act of violence is carried out for the purpose of being recorded". Or maybe they should just use some variation on conspiracy to make the camera-wielder an accomplice in the assault if they incited it. -- Charlie From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 9 09:19:53 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:19:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FW: greenpeace doesn't like ethanol either In-Reply-To: <200703082355.l28NtTML025720@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200703082355.l28NtTML025720@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070309091953.GJ31912@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 03:44:56PM -0800, spike wrote: > They don't like oil, > they don't like coal, > oh god, no nukes, > and no ethanol. > ... > > ...do these folks have a suggestion? ...spike > > Oops my information was out of date. Greenpeace likes nukes now: Isn't it fun to tear down self-erected strawmen? The environmentally minded folks are not necessarily all of the lefty neoluddite variety. But you already knew that. > http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-goes-nuc > lear.html > > I have long been an ethanol fan, but in the long run I actually think the I'm always posting my standard Patzek URL when anyone mentions bioethanol http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf Please read it. It's not that long, or at least skip the data, and read the conclusion. Summary: energetically, it doesn't work. Environmentally, it doesn't work at all. The cellulose bioethanol scam you're hearing peddled lately is not much better, energetically. I don't know what the story with algae in brakish ponds is, at least some algae are reasonably efficient, and generate oil which doesn't need to be destilled. They also might or might not produce utilizable protein (and also, a large range of toxins, but that might be managable). As to alternatives, do buy http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Oil-Gas-Methanol-Economy/dp/3527312757/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7341035-9436725?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173431029&sr=8-1 and read it. It's really cheap Wiley VCH books go. You might like it, especially since they're uncritically in favor of nuclear energy (I presume it's because one of the authors is from France). > nuke people are right on. There is this widespread understanding about the uranium fuel cycle. People look at elemental abundancies in the crust, rejoice, and never look for total high-grade ore resources (no, granite is not an ore, and even through the fuel price currently doesn't have much effect, it doesn't mean a few orders of magnitude price hikes won't have an effect), geographic ore distribution, isotope enrichment, and similiar. There are alternatives http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2007/01/uranium-vs-thorium-mining-processing.html but there is sure no commercial reactor product based on them. If you look at how much resources you need to make a reactor product (look at France how it's being done), then immediately ought to think what that kind of money spent in synfuels and renewables is going to do. This is not much of an analysis, but at least it's a start. You people can take it from here, and bring it up to a level from which we all can learn something. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Mar 9 13:24:36 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:24:36 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society In-Reply-To: <45F1225B.9020106@antipope.org> References: <357593.21493.qm@web60518.mail.yahoo.com> <45F1225B.9020106@antipope.org> Message-ID: I've watched several TV programs recently involving Chimpanzees and Bonobo Chimpanzees. There appears to be a distinct difference in a culture where the males are dominant vs. the females (but one could suppose this is tied to minor genetic variations). While the Chimpanzees exhibit violent group behavior (primarily by the males) towards non-tribe members, Bonobos apparently do not. If you've ever observed the typical "riots" that take place at soccer matches it would appear that the humans lean more towards the Chimp behavior than the Bonobo behavior. (This isn't confined to soccer, hockey and other sports have the problem but to a lesser extent in my mind). The cell phones merely enable distributed gang (tribe) activity. But people are right -- the original violence is a criminal act. Laws involving "accessories during or after the fact" or "conspiracies" ought to be able to cover the video broadcasting. I could easily imagine that human populations contain a mix of the Chimpanzee & Bonobo genes. Ultimately we are going to get into the question as to whether transhumans are going to have to be genetically modified to be more like the Bonobo's than the Chimpanzees in terms of their tendencies towards violence. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Mar 9 16:38:41 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:38:41 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] TRANSHUMANIST VIDEOS In-Reply-To: <20070309033434.78368.qmail@web32801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20070309033434.78368.qmail@web32801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070309103706.04147690@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 09:34 PM 3/8/2007, Jose Cordeiro wrote: > If you have some good videos to show, please, send them to Andr?s: > andres at purenova.com. From Puerto Rico to the > world... from the world to the universe... from this universe to the > multiverse... Yes I do. A collection from the 1980s forward. I'll get in touch with him and see what he would like to review. This should be fun, thanks Jose. Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium 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 Fri Mar 9 16:36:58 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:36:58 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Colbert Report: Mark Frauenfelder of Make Magazine In-Reply-To: <22596260.73091173421229154.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <22596260.73091173421229154.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070309103518.0412cb80@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 12:20 AM 3/9/2007, pjmanney wrote: >Make Magazine = Martha Stewart's Living for Geeks... Stephen breaks Mark's >robotic mouse! > >Best line: "We all have our favorite roboticists." > >http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=83321 Ha-ha - yes, I saw that yesterday after reading the other link. Mark is a real darling and a lot of fun. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Fri Mar 9 19:39:12 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:39:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] the non-transparent society Message-ID: The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com : >seems irrational enough to make you wonder what the true purpose of the >law really is. There is an election in France in one month, Stuart. Part of Sarkozy's platform is "Law and Order". Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2007 Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From amara at amara.com Fri Mar 9 19:30:44 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:30:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD: [Venturists] Our Share of Night to Bear Message-ID: Well, this brought tears to my eyes! From Mike Darwin about a remarkable woman, Marcelon Johnson. Amara Begin forwarded message: From: david pizer Date: 9 March 2007 3:12:55 AM GMT-02:00 To: DAVID PIZER Subject: [Venturists] Our Share of Night to Bear Reply-To: Venturists at yahoogroups.com Here is a report by Mike Darwin about a cryonicists worst nightmare. Except this is real and it is happening now. I hope after you read this you will choose to help as soon as possible. David Pizer, for the Venturists. ===================================== Our Share of Night to Bear Our share of night to bear - Our share of morning - Our blank in bliss to fill - Our blank in scorning - Here a star, and there a star, Some lose their way! Here a mist, there a mist, Afterwards - Day! -- Emily Dickinson Cryonics. What does the word bring to mind? What other words? What images? What feelings? What people? For me there are a lifetime of words and images, emotions and people. It is 1968 and I am 13-years-old. I have just come home from school on a cold gray winter afternoon and I am eagerly reaching into the mailbox through the fog of my breath hoping that there will be another issue of Cryonics Reports there. When do you date the start of cryonics? Is it 1962 when the first steps to disseminate the idea were taken? Is it 1964 when Robert Ettinger's book The Prospect of Immortality was commercially published? Or, was it in 1967 when the idea seemed realized with the freezing of the first man, Dr. James H. Bedford in Glendale, California? Those dates, or any others you choose, speak to both your knowledge and your perception of history. Forty-three years have passed since 1964 - 45-years since 1962. Almost all of the men and women who created cryonics were of the same ages most of you reading this are now - mid-20s to mid-40s. Dr. Greg Fahy, I, and perhaps a few others, were much younger when we were seduced by the idea of a world without death. Cryonics was already a central part of our world by 1968. It was a world we shared with people, most of whom have grown old and died, or are dying. I use the word "died" with painful deliberateness because if you go back in time, or simply go to the pages of the cryonics newsletters and magazines of those days and follow the histories of the people whose names appear there, you will find that most are dead. Dead - not cryopreserved, not cryogenically interred, not even in cryonic suspension. To almost everyone who reads this they are just names now; the rich details of who they were are gone, presumably forever. When I (very rarely these days) walk amongst the cryonicists of the present I am haunted by the familiarity of it all. Your voices, your faces, your words, your dreams, your expectations, they are really no different than those of the dead who preceded you and who wanted what you want, and expected what you expect. I see them in you and you in them because it is impossible to do otherwise. And so, I make a prediction: most of those cryonicists around you now will also pass away into death, and in so doing will forever take a part of you with them. This is a fearsome thing to say, but it is true, because whether the 'Singularity' comes tomorrow, or there is control of aging in 30 years, most of those now living will die. This is so because chance as much as choice decides who lives and who dies. Neither is omnipotent, but each has its undeniable and inescapable role. Plan as carefully as you will, but understand that the real world is a dynamic and unpredictable engine of destruction. The best laid plans of men are oft for naught - and we are still men. Do not forget that either - we are still mortal. It is early in January of 1964 and in Huntington Beach, Californa a 34-year-old housewife named Marcelon Johnson has just finished filling out her cryonics paperwork, paid her first cryonics society dues, and dropped her application for a Medic-Alert bracelet in the mail. She has six children and a busy, happy, life which has just gotten better because she now believes, for the first time, that she might never have to die. She is haunted by the death of her mother who was in her mid-50s when she succumbed to Alzheimer's disease. She does not want to die that way, or any other way, for that matter. Within a year Marcelon Johnson, or "Marce" as she is known to her friends, would become increasingly involved in cryonics. By March of 1967, 3 months after Dr. Bedford began the journey which he continues to this day, Marce Johnson was the Secretary-Treasurer of the Cryonics Society of California (CSC). She opened her home to cryonics meetings and catered them superbly. She answered countless information requests and filled countless orders for books and literature. On October 11, 1972 Marce reluctantly accepted the Presidency of CSC, not suspecting that she had stepped into a nightmare that would go on for almost eight years. Russ Stanley, who had welcomed Marce to her first cryonics meeting on September 30th in 1966, had been frozen for 5 years. Two of the other pioneering CSC members whom she had met and befriended were also in "cryonic suspension" at CSC's Cryonic Interment Facility in Chatsworth, CA. In the 45 years she has been actively involved in cryonics I have never heard anyone say a bad thing about Marce Johnson. That is an extraordinary achievement for anyone involved in cryonics, but it is made all the more extraordinary by the fact that Marce was the de facto President of CSC when it came to light in 1979 that all of the patients in the Chatsworth facility had been allowed to thaw and decompose. No, Marce had no complicity in that horror beyond that of being loyal and trusting. The very qualities that made Marce an exceptional human being, her readiness to help, her willingness to trust the words of a friend and colleague, and her quiet and nearly unshakeable loyalty had set her up to be in the crosshairs of the litigation and enmity that followed. The very public disintegration of CSC was not only financially costly to Marce and her husband Walt (not to mention their 6 children), it was a deep personal humiliation and loss. Three of the people who had welcomed her into cryonics were now gone - lost to a gruesome and disgraceful fate. There was no immortality for them; in fact, there was not even the dignity of a decent burial. Many of the people who were cohorts of Marce at that time walked away from cryonics and never looked back - and most of them are dead now, or are beyond help in nursing homes, or dependent upon their indifferent children. I have watched as those who died passed, and I have spoken with those who remain, helpless and dying. Chatsworth was not a pretty business. Marce Johnson did not walk away. She joined Alcor, and at a very bad time for Alcor in 1981, she quietly pulled me aside at a meeting and asked me if I would assume the Presidency of Alcor. I didn't know Marce very well then and I was completely taken aback. I was even more surprised when Marce told me that she was asking this of me because she had seen her cryonics organization fail before and she had not known what was happening until it was too late. This time she was not going to stay silent. So, it came to pass that I did become the President of Alcor later that year, and it was largely due to the quiet initiative of Marce Johnson. Over the next ten years Marce hosted more Alcor meetings than anyone else has before or since. She and her husband Walt were a dependable source of contributions, and Marce would often make the 2 hour drive (each way) from Huntington Beach to Fullerton to help with various volunteer activities at Alcor. Her gentle, intellectual decency served as a welcome beacon of normality and warmth at cryonics get-togethers that were often marred by partisanship and extremes. Marce's home was one of the least conveniently located in Southern California, but the meetings she hosted there were among the best attended. In 1985 Alcor faced a seemingly insurmountable crisis. For 7 years Alcor had been the guest of Cryovita Laboratories in Fullerton, California. Cryovita was the creation of cryonics pioneer Jerry Leaf and it was a costly drain on Jerry and his family. Jerry not only paid the rent on the facility in Fullerton, he covered all the other operating expenses out of his pocket, including the liability insurance required by the landlord. In the early 1980s the explosion of litigation in California and elsewhere resulted in skyrocketing premiums for basic business liability coverage. By 1985 coverage at any price was no longer available for businesses with a high, or impossible to estimate degree of risk. Alcor, and thus Cryovita, became uninsurable and with that came the inevitable edict from the landlord to vacate the premises. With the help of a long-time friend of Alcor, Reg Thatcher, a potential solution was identified. A small park of industrial buildings was going to be built in nearby Riverside, California with completion expected in about 10 months. We negotiated with the landlord and began trying to raise the impossible sum of $150,000 plus closing and other costs. I had from April 4th to June 20th, 986 to do just that - a little over two months. At $149,000 I stalled out. All the deep pockets had been tapped and the Life Extension Foundation was locked in a battle with the FDA for its survival, as well as for the personal freedom of Saul Kent and Bill Falloon, both of whom faced decades in prison. Alcor had approximately 100 members in 1986, and finding the additional $5,000 in cash required to cover the closing costs appeared hopeless. As it was, an additional $37,500 had already been pledged to cover the 2-year note carried by the developer. When Marce heard of this situation she quietly opened hers and Walt's check book and wrote out a check for $5,000. In the years that followed, Marce was always there for cryonics and it wasn't easy. She and Walt had had to buy life insurance late in life and the premiums were punishing, even for neuro. Sometime around 1997 Marce asked me to meet her for lunch in Huntigton Beach. That was an unusual request, but one which I was happy to oblige. It was an unexpectedly emotional and difficult meeting. As we sat in a little Italian restaurant in an anonymous strip mall Marce repeated the story of her mother's death and asked me to promise that I would not abandon her should such a fate befall her. She told me a number of deeply personal things and she asked me to dispose of some unfinished business should I outlive her. It was easy to say yes. Marce was healthy and had every prospect of living many years longer in good health. It takes extraordinary courage to confront not only your own mortality, but also the prospect of closing your life in the darkness of dementia. Nothing in my experience of Marce as a relentlessly positive and optimistic person had prepared me for that meeting. In 2001 I was alerted by Joan O'Farrel of Critical Care Research that Marce seemed both forgetful and inappropriate on the phone (Marce was, as usual, doing volunteer work, this time for Critical Care Research (CCR) and 21st Century Medicine). A call to Walt confirmed Joan's suspicions and shortly thereafter Dr. Steve Harris and I visited Marce, and Steve did a thorough exam, including an assessment for Alzheimer's. Marce did well on this assessment, but Steve suggested she go to the Memory Clinic at UCLA for a more comprehensive evaluation. Shortly thereafter, I left CCR and began what was unarguably the second most difficult period in my life. I tried to call Walt and Marce over the following 2 years and always ended up getting Marce's voice on their answering machine. In the chaos that was my life at that time I had neither the inclination nor the ability, truth to tell, to worry about anyone but myself and my partner. Finally, in 2003 Walt picked up the phone and we talked. I learned that Marce had been placed in a nursing home some months prior, and that she had moderately advanced Alzheimer's. That news was devastating enough, but what followed shook me to the core of my being. Walt told me that Marce no longer had cryonics arrangements and that she was to be cremated. I visited Marce twice in the subsequent months and found her still oriented enough to recognize me and carry on a very basic conversation. From these two visits I learned that Marce still believed she was going to be cryopreserved and that she felt that she had done something wrong, perhaps by getting sick, which had caused her cryonics friends to stop coming to see her. I learned that Saul Kent had been down to see her and Walt and to try to get Walt to reinstate Marce's arrangements, but to no avail. Walt had never been a cryonicist and his concern was, understandably, with ensuring that Marce got top quality nursing home care. Walt and Marce were confronted with "spend down" in the face of monthly nursing home bills of over $5,000. Medicare does not begin to cover these expenses until the patient has $2,000 or less in total assets - not even enough for burial. Marce's and Walt's cryonics insurance policies had been cashed-out and used for her nursing home care. In the four years that have come and gone since then I have continued to try to find some way to rescue Marce from this situation. Marce did everything right, everything that cryonics organizations asked her to do, including giving them ownership of her policy. Unfortunately, Marce fell ill just as CryoCare was closing down and she never had the opportunity to transfer her arrangements to the Cryonics Institute, or Alcor. Recently, Dave Pizer of the Venturists stepped forward to organize a fund raising effort for Marce. Dave believed, as I did, that the primary obstacle to getting Marce cryopreservation arrangements was money, not any unwillingness on Walt's part. A few days ago Walt confirmed this by consenting to have Marce cryopreserved at CI when the time comes. CI graciously agreed to accept Marce as a member and her future now rests on the ability of the Venturists to raise the $35,000 required to cover CI's costs and to transport Marce to CI from Southern California. Of the twenty or so people who attended that original LES meeting at the home of Russ Stanley in 1966, only Marce Johnson, Greg Fahy, and Robert Nelson remain alive. The others have all perished, some at Chatsworth, some later. Nothing can be done for them, but Marce endures, and she still has some chance of rescue. Marce's situation is now extremely tenuous. She has been moved to a highly skilled nursing facility a short distance from her home in Huntington Beach. Death could come at any time. Marce asked me to help her, to stand by her, and to never abandon her. The burden of that ready and unreservedly made commitment has proved far heavier than I ever imagined possible. I ask you, on behalf of all that Marce has done to make cryonics possible for you, please, please help her. Mike Darwin March 8, 2007 ====================================================== The Venturists are trying to raise the money to pay for Marce's suspension. Please make your check to "The Venturists" mail it to: The Venturists, C/O The Creekside Lodge, 11255 State Route 69, Mayer Arizona 86333. Please feel free to copy this article and pass it on to anyone else you think might want to help. All contributions are tax deductable. Thank you, David Pizer for The Society for Venturism. --------------------------------- -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 9 22:29:18 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:29:18 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] me on Victor Stenger on god Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070309162627.0228acb0@satx.rr.com> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21334644-5003900,00.html From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri Mar 9 22:32:47 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:32:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD: [Venturists] Our Share of Night to Bear Message-ID: <380-22007359223247224@M2W030.mail2web.com> From: Amara Graps >Well, this brought tears to my eyes! From Mike Darwin about a remarkable >woman, Marcelon Johnson. Thank you for posting this message. After losing several close friends who were not properly signed up for cryonics, or in the hands of a caretaker who questioned cryonics and Alcor, thus dangeously interfering with their suspension, I can compassionately understand. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com - Microsoft? Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 9 23:45:59 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:45:59 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com> So--did anyone watch it? Verdict? I didn't see it, but I'm told that McMoneagle's remote viewing exercise was impressive. If you don't agree, can you say why? (My very minimal cable doesn't carry that channel.) Damien Broderick From pj at pj-manney.com Sat Mar 10 03:16:08 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:16:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV Message-ID: <29414531.98651173496568114.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Damien wrote: >So--did anyone watch it? Verdict? I didn't see it, but I'm told that >McMoneagle's remote viewing exercise was impressive. If you don't >agree, can you say why? > >(My very minimal cable doesn't carry that channel.) Forgot to set the Tivo... :-( I've set it just now for next Friday's re-airing. I'll let you know then. PJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 9 23:03:56 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:03:56 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator power point presentation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070309180015.040b8a18@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> I know I should just give you a URL for this, but I don't have a place at the moment to hang a half megabyte presentation (the data bulk is in the pictures, it's only 17 slides). It was given Feb 28 at an ESA conference. If anyone wants a copy and has enough space in their mailbox, let me know. Keith From amara at amara.com Sat Mar 10 08:53:54 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:53:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Scientist: Re-engineering Humans Message-ID: The Scientist: Re-engineering Humans http://www.the-scientist.com/2007/3/1/28/1/ I found this by accident, looking for something else, and I only skimmed it so far, but it looks useful! Also, the comments section are longer than the article, and gives you the fears that some/many have regarding human longevity/immortality. 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 stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 09:32:19 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:32:19 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling Message-ID: In animals, the maximum intensity of sensations is limited by various active and passive mechanisms, such as depletion of neurotransmitter, inhibitory neuron activity, and the total number of neurons available. If consciousness is Turing emulable, could we overcome such limits by increasing a parameter in the program or rewriting a few subroutines? If we could, it would mean that the intensity of pleasure or pain experienced by an AI could increase without bound. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbarreira at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 09:39:21 2007 From: rbarreira at gmail.com (Ricardo Barreira) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:39:21 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> That's obvious. Our future selves will probably have a lot of fun. On 3/10/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > In animals, the maximum intensity of sensations is limited by various active > and passive mechanisms, such as depletion of neurotransmitter, inhibitory > neuron activity, and the total number of neurons available. If consciousness > is Turing emulable, could we overcome such limits by increasing a parameter > in the program or rewriting a few subroutines? If we could, it would mean > that the intensity of pleasure or pain experienced by an AI could increase > without bound. > > Stathis Papaioannou > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 11:13:07 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:13:07 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator power point presentation In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070309180015.040b8a18@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070309180015.040b8a18@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Keith, If its only half a megabyte you should be able to send it to robert.bradbury at gmail.com as an attachment (I think I've successfully sent myself larger files). Also, do you have any Irish ancestry that you can trace? Ireland, I believe, has quite liberal citizenship policies for descendants of Irish emigrants. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Mar 10 11:40:31 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:40:31 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52886.86.153.216.201.1173526831.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > In animals, the maximum intensity of sensations is limited by various > active > and passive mechanisms, such as depletion of neurotransmitter, inhibitory > neuron activity, and the total number of neurons available. If > consciousness > is Turing emulable, could we overcome such limits by increasing a > parameter > in the program or rewriting a few subroutines? If we could, it would mean > that the intensity of pleasure or pain experienced by an AI could increase > without bound. Interesting observation. Suppose the signal from a pain receptor is coded as the number of spikes per second. If that was represented as a number, we now could get an arbitrarily high pain intensity. But I think that would not really work, since an upload would have simulated neurons with a convex transfer function for high inputs (since they are directly based on the human original neurons), squashing the arbitrary intensity. We could of course change the neurons but that would also change the network properties quite a bit. If you take a normal Hopfield network and change the transfer function to be less convex for large input at the very least you change the stable states ("memories") and quite easily you just destabilize it all. So I don't think it would work in a simple fashion. Subjective pain or pleasure seems to require the activation of complex brain subsystems. Professor John Stein has done some great work here looking at how it becomes locked into 10 Hz oscillations in patients with neuropathic pain, and how disrupting them with deep brain stimulation alleviates it. The amplitude really does look like it corresponds to the amount of subjective pain. But it doesn't seem plausible that neurons that fired twice as strongly would give us twice as much pain. On the other hand, having twice as many neurons representing the pain might. Maybe posthumans will be able to experience tremendously powerful sensations simply by allocating a large number to them, setting up much more sensitive and extensive experience networks? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From amara at amara.com Sat Mar 10 14:04:06 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:04:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire Message-ID: A movie called "300" opens this weekend in the US according to this New York Times Review: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html?8dpc The movie doesn't sound worthwhile, but that doesn't mean that the story is not. This particular story belongs with the greatest epics. I've thought long and hard about why my physical wiring is so moved by this incredible story of sacrifice, and I honestly don't have an answer. Plus if Herodotus had not recorded this battle, would history have 'remembered' this event any differently? I suggest to skip the movie, and buy the following paperback book of the story, instead: Gates of Fire by Steven Pressfield http://www.amazon.com/Gates-Fire-Steven-Pressfield/dp/0385492510 I have it in a mass-market paperback published by Bantam; it was a gift many years ago from a Greek friend. Once I started the story, I couldn't put it down. Pressfield is a historian who collected facts, filling in the holes with best guesses for the reality of the situation, and I probably learned more about ancient Greek civilization from that book than anything else that I have read, with the exception of Homer. He embellished the story by adding a character who apparently survived the slaughter, was taken prisoner by Xerxes, and while the prisoner was dying, he told his life story and the story of his Greek companions so that their lives would be remembered. A moving touch. I note that my Greek friend who gave me the book is not the only Greek recommending this particular book; it seems to be adored by them. The basic story from is the following. In 480 B.C. the forces of the Persian Empire under King Xerxes numbering according to Herodotus two million men, bridged the Hellespont and marched to invade and take control of Greece. In a desperate delaying action, a picked force by Leonidas of three hundred Spartans was dispatched to the pass of Thermopylae, where the confines between mountains and sea were so narrow that the Persian army and their cavalry would be at least partially neutralized. Here it was hoped, an elite force willing to sacrifice their lives could keep back at least for a few days, the invading millions. Three hundred Spartans and their allies held off the invaders for seven days, until, their weapons smashed and broken from the slaughter, they fought "with bare hands and teeth" (as recorded by Herodotus), being at last overwhelmed. The Spartans and their Thespian allies died to the last man, but the standard of courage they set by their sacrifice inspired the Greeks to rally and, in that Fall and Spring, defeat the Persians at Salamis and Plataea and preserve the beginnings of the Western civilization ideas that many in the world still cherish. A long factual account of the event is here, at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae However, the emotions in the Wikipedia description are missing. Steven Pressfield in the book above, and Herodotus, _The Histories_ can fill in some of that with memorable pieces: "Although extraordinary valor was displayed by the entire corps of Spartans and Thespians, yet bravest of all was declared the Spartan Dienekes. It is said that on the eve of battle, he was told by a native of Trachis that the Persian archers were so numerous that, when they fired their volleys, the mass of arrows blocked out the sun. Dienekes, however, quite undaunted by the prospect, remarked with a laugh, "Good. Then we'll have our battle in the shade." 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 lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Mar 10 14:19:19 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:19:19 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] META (Was Re: LA Times: My Avatar) References: <29642728.542441173120877976.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <031701c7631f$b6714100$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> I thank PJ (and others) who cut & paste at least the introductory paragraphs of links they provide. I bail quickly when I see only links these days, unless there is something *really* compelling. Life is short, thanks, (though in this particular instance, I already knew about 2nd life). Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "pjmanney" > You be the judge. > PJ > > http://www.latimes.com/features/magazine/west/la-tm-neil09mar04,1,1455894.story?coll=la-headlines-west > > 800 WORDS > My Avatar > Dan Neil > > Great. Another world where I can't afford beachside real estate. Welcome to Second Life, the hugely hyped online social-networking > cosmos/geekapalooza where players have unlimited freedom to shape the virtual world around them, and redesign themselves at will. > They?that is, the animated versions of themselves, their "avatars"?can buy and sell real estate, start their own businesses, > create art, discuss literature, go to movies and concerts. Second Life is a separate graphical reality, a "metaverse" limited only > by the imagination. > > All of which sounds quite promising?Plato's Republic at the speed of broadband?except that this brave new world of human potential > is 98% stupid, overrun with sex clubs, discos, casinos, yard sales, tragic architecture and more shopping malls than the San > Fernando Valley. More Sin City than SimCity. Far from being the real world perfected, Second Life comes off as a zoo of its > players' collective debaucheries. And it mocks all attempts to take it seriously. For example, when a volunteer for the John > Edwards campaign set up an office in SL, he failed to notice the adult goods emporium next door. Is this what happens when you > wiki reality? > > A little background: Second Life is the creation of Linden Lab in San Francisco, which opened up the website four years ago. > Players?about a million logged on last month, many of them not drunk?pursue their happiness on about 139 square miles spread over > three continents and thousands of tiny islands. The SL world has a sky, a horizon, a night and day. Times passes. Like a typical > console game?for instance, Grand Theft Auto?SL is a 3-D world in which objects and surroundings move in relation to the player. > You see other players and they, in their avatar-centric view, see you. The environment is rendered in rough, low-resolution > digital textures, for now. In 10 years, SL will likely have the silky verisimilitude of Hollywood CGI. > > Joining SL is free, but to own property you have to pay a $9.95 monthly fee plus land-use costs proportional to your acreage (yes, > even if you are from Orange County). Got your eye on that little parcel on the coast of the Southern Continent? The coin of the > realm is Linden dollars, which you can buy from the almighty Linden Godhead with your credit card, at a rate of about 270 Linden > dollars per $1. > > Residents are free to build whatever they want on their land: ski resort, dungeon, big-box mall. To fly the skies of SL?did I > mention your avatar can fly??is to appreciate the wisdom of zoning regulations. It's like Monopoly on mescaline. > > Sound weird? Believe me, it is. Whatever its potential might be (the future of telecommuting?), SL is mostly a fantastically > elaborate chat room where players go to dance, hang out on nude beaches and otherwise live their fantasy lives. There are almost > no fat or unattractive avatars wandering around SL. Most of the females are large-breasted hotties, most of the men have torsos > like Roman cuirasses. > > I can't even begin to hint at the polymorphous perversity available in Second Life, but the most popular place, at the moment I > check, is Naughty Neva's Free Sex Orgy Room, where virtual sex workers pole-dance and lure customers into back rooms. > > Surprisingly, the Real World wants in in the worst way. In February, Sweden became the first country to open an embassy in Second > Life. And Toyota debuted its new Scion models, aimed at Generation D, in an SL press event. The month before, the Sundance Film > Festival held a screening of the documentary "Strange Culture" in SL. At about the same time, Arianna Huffington and other > participants at the World Economic Forum in Davos participated in an SL event intoning the possibilities of the new virtual > frontier. In short, all the cool kids are playing it. To keep up with these doings, Reuters and other news organizations have > opened their own virtual SL bureaus. Whatever. > > In my week in Second Life, I had the usual newbie problems, some funny, some not. After I went ice-skating, I couldn't turn off > the ice-skating animation, so my avatar performed involuntary triple salchows and double axels everywhere he went for the next day > or so. Perhaps not coincidentally, I was later propositioned by a gay avatar, behind whom, I discovered, was a 55-year-old father > of four on the down low. But mostly I just walked through this world with my virtual mouth hanging open. It's staggering, really, > to ponder all the work and creativity poured into SL by what are, actually, its consumers. This kind of mass volunteerism is the > power behind what author Don Tapscott calls "wikinomics," collaboration on an astronomical scale, a la Wikipedia. My question is a > simple one: Is Second Life the best use of collective genius when the material world is so unfinished? > > If you had the drive and the imagination?not to mention the absurd amount of free time?to create a business or design a product, > why wouldn't you do it in real space? If you could find friends and brainstorm good ideas and fuel a love affair, why wouldn't you > do it in the here and now? Come back from Second Life, people. First Life needs you. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat Mar 10 14:06:08 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:06:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > there is no difference between living your life forward and living your life in reverse, provided that each expereince is exactly the same at each moment in each case, e.g. you don't remember being 40 when you are 20. It is like imagining that you swap places with George Bush: if you remember being you when you are him then something interesting has happened, but if you instantaneously swap over his body and mind for your body and mind, then no-one will notice any difference, and in fact it could have happened while you read the last sentence. < How do you know that consciousness (and hence benefit over a life worth living) isn't dependent on entropy increase? Yes, I know that computations can be made reversible, but until a lot more is known about all this, I'll have my computations run in the forward direction with entropy increase, thank you. Lee From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Mar 10 17:47:47 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:47:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] POL: World Watch on Transhumanism Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070310114224.040abec0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> In case no one posted this already: Feature Articles "Our Biopolitical Future: Four Scenarios" by Richard Hayes "Emerging genetic technologies could radically reshape the world, for good or ill. "Most of us would enjoy being healthier, smarter, more attractive, and longer-lived. But we also know there can be too much of a good thing. If we're overweight it makes sense to reduce, but anorexia can be lethal. A nice haircut can make us feel good, but repeated, expensive cosmetic surgery can bring more complications than complements. Most of us understand this and learn to lead full and productive lives within the natural range of diversity that comes with being human. "But what if that natural range of diversity no longer applied? What if it were possible to radically enhance our looks, brains, athletic abilities, and life span, with, say, injections of customized genes? What if we could design our children with chromosomes purchased from a catalogue?" http://www.worldwatch.org/taxonomy/term/462 Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Sat Mar 10 18:30:51 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:30:51 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Scientist: Re-engineering Humans Message-ID: <17572272.123011173551451036.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >The Scientist: Re-engineering Humans >http://www.the-scientist.com/2007/3/1/28/1/ > >I found this by accident, looking for something else, and I only >skimmed it so far, but it looks useful! Also, the comments >section are longer than the article, and gives you the fears that >some/many have regarding human longevity/immortality. Could you send me or post a copy? I don't have a subscription. Thanks! PJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Mar 10 18:40:03 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:40:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070310131227.0e28c588@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:04 PM 3/10/2007 +0100, Amara wrote: >A movie called "300" opens this weekend in the US according to this >New York Times Review: >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/movies/09thre.html?8dpc > >The movie doesn't sound worthwhile, but that doesn't mean that the story >is not. This particular story belongs with the greatest epics. I've >thought long and hard about why my physical wiring is so moved by this >incredible story of sacrifice, and I honestly don't have an answer. snip I do. (from http://www.sl4.org/archive/0406/9271.html) What are humans? They are survival machines built by genes that have been selected by evolution. Survival for *what*? According to modern evolutionary theory, survival to propagate the genes that built them. (It *is* circular, but that's the nature of evolution.) If you buy into this view, then what people find "moral" should be highly shaped by what promoted the survival of the genes they carry. But as Hamilton figured out, the situation is more complicated than just the genes they carry personally. The genes you carry are also carried in your relatives, first your family, second your tribe, third your nation or ethnic group and finally, the whole human race. If your sacrifice results in a net gain in the number of surviving copies of your genes (compared to the alternative) then behavior to sacrifice even your life will become more common by simple evolution. I remember years ago being disconcerted for reasons I could not express at the time by some hard core Libertarians who made the claim that the proper view for a person was to value their life above the entire rest of the human race. That's not true. It is proper *from the gene's view* to risk your life and even die so that copies of your genes in [family, tribe, nation, race] may survive. To the considerable extent our mental biases are shaped by our genes, this gene based rule determines what we find "moral," and thus provides an objective basis for "moral." Was the suicidal defense by the Greeks at Thermopylae against the Persians in 480 BCE a moral act? Yes from the viewpoint of their genes. That is one of the reasons the story is attractive and has stayed alive in human culture for 2,500 years. ***** (from http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2006-November/030340.html) Perhaps an example from history would help. Consider the Spartans at Thermopylae: " . . . as well as a symbol of courage against extremely overwhelming odds. The heroic sacrifice of the Spartans and the Thespians has captured the minds of many throughout the ages and has given birth to many cultural references as a result." . . . "Knowing the likely outcome of the battle, Leonidas selected his men on one simple criterion: he took only men who had fathered sons that were old enough to take over the family responsibilities of their fathers. The rationale behind this criterion was that the Spartans knew their death was almost certain at Thermopylae. Plutarch mentions, in his Sayings of Spartan Women, that after encouraging her husband before his departure for the battlefield, Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas I asked him what she should do when he had left. To this, Leonidas replied: 'Marry a good man, and have good children.'" ****** Spooky! Almost as if the Greeks understood EP and genetics. Perhaps living closer to the Stone Age and incessant war they would find it easier to understand compared to modern people. Leonidas' death did,/b> save Greek genes, specifically the Spartans', more specifically his genes through his children and even more specifically the genes of his male children who would have been killed by the invaders. Along with the preceding victory at Marathon some ten years earlier, "their victory endowed the Greeks with a faith in their destiny that was to endure for three centuries, during which western culture was born." ********* Google finds about 30 for Thermopylae "keith henson" I should add that understanding why we react so strongly with this story does not prevent us from feeling the powerful emotional effects it provokes. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Mar 10 19:03:44 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:03:44 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070310125019.021ee860@satx.rr.com> At 01:40 PM 3/10/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: >Leonidas' death did,/b> save Greek genes, specifically the Spartans', >more specifically his genes through his children and even more specifically >the genes of his male children who would have been killed by the invaders. >... >I should add that understanding why we react so strongly with this story >does not prevent us from feeling the powerful emotional effects it provokes. So do you predict that if you heard a story of 300 whitebread US soldiers heroically and at the cost of their own lives defending a poverty-stricken largely Islamic African nation against a vile force of two million invading 'Stanians (or perhaps $cientologists), you would *not* be moved? Or, more realistically, defending Tutsis against Hutu genocide? Jews against Nazis? That is, it's all genes rather than memes/empathic affiliations/whatever? Granted, bravery per se in face of great odds might be interpreted as a generalization of "defend the family against the world", but perhaps by the times it's got sufficiently generalized ("I detest bullies!") some other almost independent dynamics are in play. Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Sat Mar 10 19:09:05 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:09:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator power point presentation In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070309180015.040b8a18@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070309180015.040b8a18@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070310190905.GY31912@leitl.org> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 06:03:56PM -0500, Keith Henson wrote: > > I know I should just give you a URL for this, but I don't have a place at > the moment to hang a half megabyte presentation (the data bulk is in the > pictures, it's only 17 slides). It was given Feb 28 at an ESA conference. > > If anyone wants a copy and has enough space in their mailbox, let me know. I've put up the .ppt at http://eugen.leitl.org/A-2000-tonne-per-day-Space-Elevator1.ppt -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sat Mar 10 19:08:08 2007 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:08:08 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] Space elevator power point presentation In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070309180015.040b8a18@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070309180015.040b8a18@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <45F30218.8000903@mydruthers.com> > I know I should just give you a URL for this, but I don't have a place at > the moment to hang a half megabyte presentation (the data bulk is in the > pictures, it's only 17 slides). It was given Feb 28 at an ESA conference. > > If anyone wants a copy and has enough space in their mailbox, let me know. Send it to me, and I'll post it in a public place and publish the link here. Chris -- Currently reading: Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope; Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics; Robert Heinlein and Spider Robinson, Variable Star Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com Blog: http://pancrit.org From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 20:23:36 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:23:36 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Scientist: Re-engineering Humans In-Reply-To: <17572272.123011173551451036.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <17572272.123011173551451036.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: On 3/10/07, pjmanney wrote: > > Could you send me or post a copy? I don't have a subscription. > The link works OK for me. Try going to: and clink on the link to Re-Engineering Humans. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Mar 10 20:59:51 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:59:51 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Scientist: Re-engineering Humans In-Reply-To: References: <17572272.123011173551451036.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070310145928.02225a08@satx.rr.com> At 08:23 PM 3/10/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: >Try going to: > > >and clink on the link to Re-Engineering Humans. Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. ---------- Apache/2.0.46 (Red Hat) DAV/2 mod_jk/1.2.14 Server at www.the-scientist.com Port 80 From amara at amara.com Sat Mar 10 21:05:04 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:05:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire Message-ID: Keith: >"Knowing the likely outcome of the battle, Leonidas selected his men on one >simple criterion: he took only men who had fathered sons that were old >enough to take over the family responsibilities of their fathers. That might not be the truth, however (according to another source). Leonidas might have chosen the particular 300 because of the _mothers_ of the 300 ... :-) Amara From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 21:23:16 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:23:16 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Scientist: Re-engineering Humans In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070310145928.02225a08@satx.rr.com> References: <17572272.123011173551451036.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070310145928.02225a08@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/10/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Service Temporarily Unavailable > > The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to > maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. > You must have frightened the server, Damien. ;) I cleared cache and rebooted. Both the original link and my new link work fine now. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 21:50:51 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:50:51 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070310125019.021ee860@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070310125019.021ee860@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/10/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > So do you predict that > > if you heard a story of 300 whitebread US soldiers heroically and at > the cost of their own lives defending a poverty-stricken largely > Islamic African nation against a vile force of two million invading > 'Stanians (or perhaps $cientologists), > > you would *not* be moved? > > Or, more realistically, defending Tutsis against Hutu genocide? Jews > against Nazis? > > That is, it's all genes rather than memes/empathic > affiliations/whatever? Granted, bravery per se in face of great odds > might be interpreted as a generalization of "defend the family > against the world", but perhaps by the times it's got sufficiently > generalized ("I detest bullies!") some other almost independent > dynamics are in play. > You also have to look at what the Spartans actually were. The males were trained from children to be savage killing machines, bonded to the other males that they lived, trained and fought together with. (And had sex with). The ideology of Sparta was oriented around the state. The individual lived (and died) for the state. Their lives were designed to serve the state from their beginning to the age of sixty. Spartan society was a militaristic society ruled by an aristocracy, based on slave labour. They needed slaves because the men were all in the army full time. If the males were too weak to be in the army, they were killed. At the age of seven, every male Spartan was sent to military and athletic school. These schools taught toughness, discipline, endurance of pain (often severe pain), and survival skills. At twenty, after thirteen years of training, the Spartan became a soldier. The Spartan soldier spent his life with his fellow soldiers; he lived in barracks and ate all his meals with his fellow soldiers. He also married, but he didn't live with his wife. Only at the age of thirty, did the Spartan become an "equal," and was allowed to live in his own house with his own family?although he continued to serve in the military. -------------- These Spartans were not very 'nice' people. They were the total opposite of the Athenian society that led to our own civilization. Their training made them fight and die for the state and for their fellow soldiers who they were intensely bonded to. This bonding of platoons of soldiers is still in use today as it is a well recognised aid to the fighting capability of foot soldiers. I doubt if the Spartans were fighting for their families and children. The 300 were chosen because they already had produced children for the state, but if they were under 30 they would still have been living in barracks and rarely have seen their families. Remember the male children left the family at age seven. Our idea of 'family' was alien to Spartan society. BillK From amara at amara.com Sat Mar 10 21:59:27 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:59:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire Message-ID: I said (before checking properly): >That might not be the truth, however (according to another source). >Leonidas might have chosen the particular 300 because of the _mothers_ >of the 300 ... :-) ..sorry there's more, not only the mothers. The wives, the sisters. Leonidas might have chosen those 300 for the particular women relatives of those 300. Perhaps that still fits your theory, however, I think that the emphasis changes for the way that he wished his culture to survive. Amara From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 10 22:53:15 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:53:15 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/11/07, Lee Corbin wrote: Stathis writes > > > > there is no difference between living your life forward and living your > life in reverse, provided that each expereince is exactly > the same at each moment in each case, e.g. you don't remember being 40 > when you are 20. It is like imagining that you swap places > with George Bush: if you remember being you when you are him then > something interesting has happened, but if you instantaneously > swap over his body and mind for your body and mind, then no-one will > notice any difference, and in fact it could have happened while > you read the last sentence. > < > > How do you know that consciousness (and hence benefit over a life worth > living) > isn't dependent on entropy increase? > > Yes, I know that computations can be made reversible, but until a lot more > is > known about all this, I'll have my computations run in the forward > direction > with entropy increase, thank you. The "real world" could run forwards while your mind runs backwards. Imagine a virtual reality program is written with your entire life mapped out, broken up into intervals. Each subprogram thus created will contain memories of "past" intervals but not "future" intervals. The point is, if these programs were run forwards, backwards or all jumbled up, you would not be able to tell that anything unusual had happened from within the program. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Mar 11 02:31:08 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:31:08 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070310212221.0e28dbe8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:59 PM 3/10/2007 +0100, you wrote: >I said (before checking properly): > >That might not be the truth, however (according to another source). > >Leonidas might have chosen the particular 300 because of the _mothers_ > >of the 300 ... :-) > >..sorry there's more, not only the mothers. The wives, the sisters. >Leonidas might have chosen those 300 for the particular women relatives >of those 300. Perhaps that still fits your theory, however, I think >that the emphasis changes for the way that he wished his culture >to survive. Although "culture" might map to tribe or band, evolution is presumed to shape psychological traits toward those that promote genetic survival. That means (where personal survival is contraindicated) taking horrible risks or dying so that relatives carrying copies of your genes will survive. Human psychological traits of this sort were shaped when we lived in little hunter gatherer bands with high average relatedness. The evolution of such human psychological traits since the start of agriculture 10k years ago is expected to be small considering the millions of years our ancestors lived in hunter gatherer bands. This is not my theory, but a fundamental statement of evolutionary psychology. Keith Henson From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Mar 11 04:49:38 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:49:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070310131227.0e28c588@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <036e01c76399$03263450$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Agreeing to Damien's good points already made, let me comment on Keith's > nation, race] may survive. To the considerable extent our mental biases > are shaped by our genes, this gene based rule determines what we find > "moral," and thus provides an objective basis for "moral." That is correct. That is how it arose. > Was the suicidal defense by the Greeks at Thermopylae against the Persians > in 480 BCE a moral act? Yes from the viewpoint of their genes. And *ALSO* moral from the point of view of their culture and their civilization (pace BillK's comments). Perhaps like Damien, I am annoyed at the failure here to mention that it isn't *just* from the point of view of the genes. (It's even moral from my own well-integrated individualist ethos.) Any society or group or nation or band or tribe that wants to keep on existing had better be able to affirm LOUDLY and without qualification that acting in behalf of said group is moral. Evolution makes short work of any group that doesn't affirm this. Sadly, this applies to almost every single group of which I am a member :-( :-( :-( But leave it to the maniac individualists of modern western civilization to drive every last nail into the coffin of the group proclivities that bred and nurtured us. As the groups that are replacing us in almost every domain well intuit, our documented behavior is little more than a manual for collective suicide. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Mar 11 04:54:38 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:54:38 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <036f01c76399$b6fcb7b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 3/11/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > How do you know that consciousness (and hence benefit over a life worth living) > > isn't dependent on entropy increase? > > Yes, I know that computations can be made reversible, but until a lot more is > > known about all this, I'll have my computations run in the forward direction > > with entropy increase, thank you. > The "real world" could run forwards while your mind runs backwards. That is a good argument, at least under Boltzmann's view. But that may be wrong. > Imagine a virtual reality program is written with your entire life mapped out, > broken up into intervals. Each subprogram thus created will contain memories > of "past" intervals but not "future" intervals. Oh, that's the old 1994 Greg Egan scenario in Permutation City. Of course. > The point is, if these programs were run forwards, backwards or all jumbled up, > you would not be able to tell that anything unusual had happened from within > the program. Of course, at least to outward observers. You would report what ever you report. It does not *necessarily* follow that you experience anything. Recall the horrible GLUT (Giant Lookup Table) which performs no computations but reports vived experiences. I concede that it is *possible* that I would have experiencs under reversed computations; I dispute that it can be proven. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Mar 11 07:31:26 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:31:26 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: <036e01c76399$03263450$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070310131227.0e28c588@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <036e01c76399$03263450$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703102331m2ceed6e9r96eadafd7c291463@mail.gmail.com> On 3/11/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > And *ALSO* moral from the point of view of their culture and their > civilization > (pace BillK's comments). Perhaps like Damien, I am annoyed at the > failure here to mention that it isn't *just* from the point of view of the > genes. > (It's even moral from my own well-integrated individualist ethos.) > > Any society or group or nation or band or tribe that wants to keep on > existing had better be able to affirm LOUDLY and without qualification > that acting in behalf of said group is moral. Evolution makes short work > of any group that doesn't affirm this. Sadly, this applies to almost > every > single group of which I am a member :-( :-( :-( Well put! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Mar 11 07:57:47 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:57:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire Message-ID: BillK: >You also have to look at what the Spartans actually were. [historically accurate description of their lives and training deleted] >These Spartans were not very 'nice' people. !! Come on, they were human too. I hate it when a culture (especially from old history) is painted with a broad brush, losing the nuances of context and the history and much more. I understand well how some of the philosophy that the Spartans represented laid the groundwork for many horrific events in human history, but I would appreciate it they could be described with a little more understanding. I think that J.B. Bury (as usual) does an excellent job for the Greeks. The book that I recommended previously can help in that regard too. From _History of Greece_ J.B. Bury, pg. 133-134. (My copy is published in 1938, but there exist many newer publication dates for this work too) {begin quote, typing errors mine} Thus Sparta was a camp in which the highest object of every man's life was to be ready at any moment to fight with the utmost efficiency for his city. The aim of every law, the end of the whole social order was to fashion good soldiers. Private luxury was strictly forbidden; Spartan simplicity became proverbial. The individual man, entirely lost in the state, had no life of his own; he had no problems of human existence to solve for himself. Sparta was not a place for thinkers or theorists; the whole duty of man and the highest ideal of life were contained for a Spartan in the laws of his city. Warfare being the object of all the Spartan laws and institutions, one might expect to find the city in a perpetual state of war. One might look to see her sons always ready to strive with their neighbours without any ulterior object, war being for them an end in itself. But it was not so; they did not wage war more lightly than other men; we cannot rank them with barbarians who care only for fighting and hunting. We attribute the original motive of their institutions, in some measure at least, to the situation of a small dominant class in the midst of ill-contented subjects and hostile serfs. They must always be prepared to meet a rebellion of Perioeci or a revolt of Helots, and a surprise would have been fatal. Forming a permanent camp in a country which was far from friendly, they were compelled to be always on their guard. But there was something more in the vitality and conservation of the Spartan constitution, than precaution against the danger of possible insurrection. It appealed to the Greek sense of Beauty. There was a certain completeness and simplicity about the constitution itself, a completeness and simplicity about the manner of life enforced by the laws, a completeness and simplicity too about the type of character developed by them, which Greeks or other cities never failed to contemplate with genuine, if distant admiration. Shut away in "hollow many-clefted Lacedaemon," out of the world and not sharing in the progress of other Greek cities, Sparta seemed to remain at a standstill and a stranger from Athens of Miletus in the fifth century visiting the straggling villages which formed her unwalled unpretentious city must have had a feeling of being transported into an age long past, when men were braver, better, and simpler, unspoiled by wealth, undisturbed by ideas. To a philosopher, like Plato, speculating in political science, the Spartan state seemed the nearest approach to the ideal. The ordinary Greek looked upon it as a structure of severe and simple beauty, a Dorian city stately as a Dorian temple, far nobler than his own abode, but not so comfortable to dwell in. If this was the effect produced upon strangers, we can imagine what a perpetual joy to a Spartan peer was the contemplation of the Spartan constitution; how he felt a sense of superiority in being a citizen of that city, and a pride in living up to its idea and fulfilling the obligations of his nobility. In his mouth "not beautiful" meant contrary to the Spartan laws," which were believed to have been inspired by Apollo. This deep admiration for their constitution as an ideally beautiful creation, the conviction that it was incapable of improvement-- being, in truth, wonderfully effective in realising its aims-- is bound up with the conservative spirit of the Spartans. {end quote} 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 Sun Mar 11 08:28:32 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:28:32 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 3/11/07, Amara Graps wrote: > > Come on, they were human too. I hate it when a culture (especially from > old history) is painted with a broad brush, losing the nuances of > context and the history and much more. > > I understand well how some of the philosophy that the Spartans > represented laid the groundwork for many horrific events in human > history, but I would appreciate it they could be described with > a little more understanding. I think that J.B. Bury (as usual) > does an excellent job for the Greeks. The book that I recommended > previously can help in that regard too. > > From _History of Greece_ J.B. Bury, pg. 133-134. (My copy is published > in 1938, but there exist many newer publication dates for this work too) > > {begin quote, typing errors mine} > Thus Sparta was a camp in which the highest object of every man's life > was to be ready at any moment to fight with the utmost efficiency for > his city. The aim of every law, the end of the whole social order was to > fashion good soldiers. Private luxury was strictly forbidden; Spartan > simplicity became proverbial. The individual man, entirely lost in the > state, had no life of his own; he had no problems of human existence to > solve for himself. Sparta was not a place for thinkers or theorists; the > whole duty of man and the highest ideal of life were contained for a > Spartan in the laws of his city. Warfare being the object of all the > Spartan laws and institutions, one might expect to find the city in a > perpetual state of war. One might look to see her sons always ready to > strive with their neighbours without any ulterior object, war being for > them an end in itself. > > But it was not so; they did not wage war more lightly than other men; we > cannot rank them with barbarians who care only for fighting and hunting. > We attribute the original motive of their institutions, in some measure > at least, to the situation of a small dominant class in the midst of > ill-contented subjects and hostile serfs. They must always be prepared > to meet a rebellion of Perioeci or a revolt of Helots, and a surprise > would have been fatal. Forming a permanent camp in a country which was > far from friendly, they were compelled to be always on their guard. But > there was something more in the vitality and conservation of the Spartan > constitution, than precaution against the danger of possible > insurrection. It appealed to the Greek sense of Beauty. There was a > certain completeness and simplicity about the constitution itself, a > completeness and simplicity about the manner of life enforced by the > laws, a completeness and simplicity too about the type of character > developed by them, which Greeks or other cities never failed to > contemplate with genuine, if distant admiration. Shut away in "hollow > many-clefted Lacedaemon," out of the world and not sharing in the > progress of other Greek cities, Sparta seemed to remain at a standstill > and a stranger from Athens of Miletus in the fifth century visiting the > straggling villages which formed her unwalled unpretentious city must > have had a feeling of being transported into an age long past, when men > were braver, better, and simpler, unspoiled by wealth, undisturbed by > ideas. To a philosopher, like Plato, speculating in political science, > the Spartan state seemed the nearest approach to the ideal. The > ordinary Greek looked upon it as a structure of severe and simple > beauty, a Dorian city stately as a Dorian temple, far nobler than his > own abode, but not so comfortable to dwell in. If this was the effect > produced upon strangers, we can imagine what a perpetual joy to a > Spartan peer was the contemplation of the Spartan constitution; how he > felt a sense of superiority in being a citizen of that city, and a pride > in living up to its idea and fulfilling the obligations of his nobility. > In his mouth "not beautiful" meant contrary to the Spartan laws," which > were believed to have been inspired by Apollo. This deep admiration for > their constitution as an ideally beautiful creation, the conviction that > it was incapable of improvement-- being, in truth, wonderfully effective > in realising its aims-- is bound up with the conservative spirit of the > Spartans. > {end quote} > > They got themselves into a closed loop that they couldn't get out of. They invaded the next door country out of necessity and gained a lot of fertile land and slaves. But the slaves were rebellious. So the Spartans went on a war footing to keep control of the slaves. But there were a lot of slaves, so all the Spartans ended up in the army to enable their state to survive But they needed the slaves to work the land to support the army. It was a vicious circle. And they had difficulty producing enough children. Especially as they killed all the weak children. That's what eventually led to their downfall. When I was reading about the Spartans, it strongly reminded me of the Russian Communist system. Where the state was everything. Communism also has that 'ideal state' appeal to philosophers. So long as you ignore personal freedom, the beauty of subservience to the state system has a lot of theoretical appeal. But it is hell in practice. The Athenians thought the Spartans were insane. The suicide mission to Thermopylae reminded me of the Chernobyl disaster. When the Soviet troops were asked for volunteers to sweep the fiercely radioactive debris off the roof, as one man they all stepped forward, prepared to die for the good of the state. You can be impressed by their dedication, but, really, the system was quite mad. BillK From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Mar 11 08:44:55 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:44:55 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <036f01c76399$b6fcb7b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <036f01c76399$b6fcb7b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703110044t9efe1c6o9495bb68f4279e59@mail.gmail.com> On 3/11/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Of course, at least to outward observers. You would report what ever you > report. > It does not *necessarily* follow that you experience anything. Recall the > horrible > GLUT (Giant Lookup Table) which performs no computations but reports vived > experiences. > But the GLUT is not lying; it is, after all, nothing less than a multiverse with a population of 2^N people (N being the relevant number of bits, itself a large number by everyday standards); when you ask it for output, you are effectively using a time machine to travel forwards and sideways in time to the relevant part of that multiverse and select one member of its population to ask; the person thus consulted truthfully reports a subjective experience. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Sun Mar 11 08:54:06 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:54:06 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire Message-ID: BillK >They got themselves into a closed loop that they couldn't get out of. Yes, Thank you, for the first understanding words. Bury, furthermore says: "There is no doubt that the Spartan system of discipline grew up by degrees; yet the argument from design might but plausibly used to prove that it was the original creation of a single lawgiver. We may observe how well articulated and how closely interdependent were its various parts. The whole discipline of the society necessitated the existence of Helots; and on the other hand, the existence of Helots necessitated such a discipline. The ephorate was the keystone of the structure; and in the dual kingship one might see a cunning intention to secure the powers of the ephors by perpetual jealousy between the kings. In the whole fabric one might trace an artistic unity which might be thought to argue the work of a single mind. And until lately this was generally believed to be the case; many still maintain the belief. A certain Lycurgus was said to have framed the Spartan institutions and enacted the Spartan laws about the beginning of the ninth century (B.C.)." [Bury goes on for another page about this theory, that the man was not a man but a deity instead, which is interesting too.] >When I was reading about the Spartans, it strongly reminded me of the >Russian Communist system. Where the state was everything. Yes.. this has been written about extensively (Rand and others pointing to Plato's ideal as the major philosophical disaster leading to communism). >You can be impressed by their dedication, Impressed? Maybe, but fascinated is more accurate. They expressed something very strong in human character traits that would be very good for us to understand, in order to not repeat mistakes, and rechannel productively, if necessary. >but, really, the system was quite mad. Yes, but why, and how can we learn from that? How can we use it? Has there been significant improvement in understanding that part of ourselves in the last 2500 years? and not wrt EP, which Keith has answers... Is EP the only field that recognizes any of this? If so, humans are in trouble. Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From amara at amara.com Sun Mar 11 10:52:50 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:52:50 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire Message-ID: BillK and others: This has probably occurred to you, but if not: The Spartans, were as different from the Athenians as one could possibly be, yet at the end, they were the people who likely saved them. Isn't that interesting? Now do you see why I don't think it is wise to reject that part of ourselves? Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From eugen at leitl.org Sun Mar 11 12:07:09 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:07:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Scientist: Re-engineering Humans In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070310145928.02225a08@satx.rr.com> References: <17572272.123011173551451036.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070310145928.02225a08@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070311120709.GB31912@leitl.org> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 02:59:51PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:23 PM 3/10/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: > > >Try going to: > > > > > >and clink on the link to Re-Engineering Humans. > > > Service Temporarily Unavailable > > The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to > maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. I take this opportunity to plug http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/rss which typically carries all the URLs passing through this list, and then some more. I presume the story is http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/transhumantech/message/38182 -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Mar 11 12:37:54 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:37:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703110044t9efe1c6o9495bb68f4279e59@mail.gmail.com> References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <036f01c76399$b6fcb7b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703110044t9efe1c6o9495bb68f4279e59@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070311123754.GM31912@leitl.org> On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 08:44:55AM +0000, Russell Wallace wrote: > Of course, at least to outward observers. You would report what > ever you report. > It does not *necessarily* follow that you experience anything. > Recall the horrible > GLUT (Giant Lookup Table) which performs no computations but The GLUT doesn't exist. There's not enough atoms in the universe to build a GLUT for a bee. Lookup tables are quite useless as computation goes, and of course simple sensorics->motorics mapping completely ignores history, which is represented in the inner state. If your GLUT has no inner state, it won't fool anybody. > reports vived > experiences. > > But the GLUT is not lying; it is, after all, nothing less than a The GLUT cannot lie, because the GLUT doesn't exist. > multiverse with a population of 2^N people (N being the relevant > number of bits, itself a large number by everyday standards); when you > ask it for output, you are effectively using a time machine to travel > forwards and sideways in time to the relevant part of that multiverse > and select one member of its population to ask; the person thus > consulted truthfully reports a subjective experience. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Mar 11 12:45:47 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:45:47 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] =?iso-8859-1?q?looking_for_Dr=2E_Jos=E9_Manuel_Rod?= =?iso-8859-1?q?r=EDguez_Delgado?= Message-ID: <20070311124547.GN31912@leitl.org> I'm looking for the whereabouts of Dr. Jos? Manuel Rodr?guez Delgado, recently seen on a documentary posted by Andres Colon on wta-talk: http://www.thoughtware.tv/site/show/93 He's now probably around 92 years old, and might live somewhere around San Diego area. Thanks for any pointers. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Mar 11 13:12:58 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:12:58 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <20070311123754.GM31912@leitl.org> References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <036f01c76399$b6fcb7b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703110044t9efe1c6o9495bb68f4279e59@mail.gmail.com> <20070311123754.GM31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703110612sbb8a335y4b919f5095ce7cb6@mail.gmail.com> On 3/11/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > The GLUT cannot lie, because the GLUT doesn't exist. Yep - or to put it another way, the GLUT does exist - it's called the Tegmark multiverse. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Mar 11 16:37:44 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:37:44 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> "Ricardo Barreira" > Our future selves will probably have a lot of fun. Perhaps a little too much fun. If you could increase your happiness and pleasure to any degree desired simply by turning a knob you would be in grave danger of turning into the ultimate drug addict. It could be an explanation for the Fermi Paradox. John K Clark From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Mar 11 17:17:03 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:17:03 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, John K Clark wrote: "Ricardo Barreira" > > > Our future selves will probably have a lot of fun. > > Perhaps a little too much fun. If you could increase your happiness and > pleasure to any degree desired simply by turning a knob you would be in > grave danger of turning into the ultimate drug addict. It could be an > explanation for the Fermi Paradox. Except you could arbitrarily reassign the pleasure to goal-directed activity, the re-encephalisation of emotion in David Pearce's terminology: (http://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedon1.htm#re-encephalisation) More generally, if you had complete access to your mind and could re-program it at will, you could set your own desires or second and higher order desires: for example, you could simply decide to be a stoic, not being tempted to indulge in pleasure, no matter how extreme. Finally, what would be wrong with a life of continuous, undifferentiated pleasure? The only disadvantage I can see is that as with drug addiction, it can lead to neglect of all other functions, such as your job, your family, your physical health. But if we had control over unlimited processing power, the necessities of life, and even more elaborate endeavours such as scientific research, could be assigned to subroutines while the greater part of your mind continues its residence in heaven. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Mar 11 17:42:05 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:42:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com><002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> : Stathis Papaioannou > you could arbitrarily reassign the pleasure to goal-directed activity Well sure you COULD, but WOULD you? Grand and glorious goals are difficult to achieve and take a long time; much easier to just turn a knob and immediately get a rush of pride and satisfaction in a job well done. > for example, you could simply decide to be a stoic Well sure you COULD, but WOULD you? After a while you might notice that being stoic isn't a lot of laughs. I'll crank up the happiness level just a tad, oh that's much better, maybe just a little more, even better, just one more small increase won't hurt anything..... > Finally, what would be wrong with a life of continuous, undifferentiated > pleasure? I wasn't making a value judgment; I was simply observing that drug addiction could be the reason that the universe does not appear to have been engineered. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun Mar 11 19:22:09 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:22:09 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] AI and the law already In-Reply-To: <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070311141725.03e97ce0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> AI Cited for Unlicensed Practice of Law Calculon A web-based "expert system" that helped users prepare bankruptcy filings for a fee made too many decisions to be considered a clerical tool, an appeals court said last week, ruling that the software was effectively practicing law without a license. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/03/ai_cited_for_un.html Interesting comments too. Keith Henson From ps.udoname at gmail.com Sun Mar 11 19:35:13 2007 From: ps.udoname at gmail.com (ps udoname) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:35:13 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] AI and the law already In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070311141725.03e97ce0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <5.1.0.14.0.20070311141725.03e97ce0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <28553f510703111235q6d746aa6r435c5d9cf694c8ae@mail.gmail.com> While I don't think this is an indicator that AIs are any closer to human level intelligence, it is very encouraging from a legal point of view. I am often concerned about the possibility of bioconcervative government driving transhumanists underground, but if AIs now need a license, then for instance, maybe before long crionics patients with have a legal status. On 11/03/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > > AI Cited for Unlicensed Practice of Law > > Calculon A web-based "expert system" that helped users prepare bankruptcy > filings for a fee made too many decisions to be considered a clerical > tool, > an appeals court said last week, ruling that the software was effectively > practicing law without a license. > > http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/03/ai_cited_for_un.html > > Interesting comments too. > > Keith Henson > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 11 19:56:38 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:56:38 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] AI and the law already In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070311141725.03e97ce0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070311141725.03e97ce0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: > but if AIs now need a license... They don't. I was going to comment about what a strange and remarkable legal decision this seems to be, but then I read the article and realized what should have been obvious: contrary to the headline and the words in the first paragraph, the judge did not actually rule that "the software was effectively practicing law without a license". The ruling was against the human seller of the computerized legal service, of course. -gts From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 01:29:51 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > BillK and others: > > This has probably occurred to you, but if not: > > The Spartans, were as different from the Athenians > as one could possibly > be, yet at the end, they were the people who likely > saved them. > > Isn't that interesting? Now do you see why I don't > think it is wise > to reject that part of ourselves? I certainly do, Amara. I have ever since I read "The Lion in the Gateway" when I was twelve. The Spartans are an archetype of courage, skill, and tactical prowess. The battle of Thermopylae is a textbook example of the power of proper choice of battlefield that is still discussed in military schools today. As far as your more general point goes, I agree with you there as well. There is a large amount of utility in warriors, weapons, and the martial arts. Whether that utility is positive or negative in sign depends mostly on which side of the thin red line you are on. One of the more interesting thing about the Spartans were that they were for the most part independent "stay at homes". While they did take over a good chunk of the Greek peninsula in the Peloponnesian Wars, that was the extent of their imperial ambitions. On the evil empire scale, it falls far short of the likes of Persia, Macedonia, Carthage, and Rome. In fact neither Phillip II nor Alexander the Great could threaten or convince the Spartans into helping create a Greek/Macedonian empire. To be an independent state in Alexander the Great's own backyard is quite an accomplishment in my view, considering that Thebes was burnt to the ground for challenging him. As a side note, Sparta's tradition of leaving babies who were weak out in the wild was probably the first recorded example of a eugenics program of which I am aware. Unfortunately it probably also hastened their decline by keeping their numbers low. Also Spartan women were somewhat fascinating as well. Their whole tradition of sending their husbands off to battle by giving them their shields and saying "with this or on this" is rather powerful as they were in effect saying "come back victorious, dead, or not at all." How refreshingly Darwinian is that? Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state." -Mark Twain ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 02:29:29 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:29:29 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, John K Clark wrote: : Stathis Papaioannou > > > you could arbitrarily reassign the pleasure to goal-directed activity > > Well sure you COULD, but WOULD you? Grand and glorious goals are difficult > to achieve and take a long time; much easier to just turn a knob and > immediately get a rush of pride and satisfaction in a job well done. Suppose you have the choice between driving to work or riding a bicycle to work. Normally, you would choose to drive, because even though the bicycle has advantages, it gets you places slower and sweatier. However, if you had access to the source code of your mind, you could simply adjust things so that the pleasure you get from the bicycle outweighs the inconvenience. Thus, everyone wins: you enjoy yourself more than driving the car, even though it's more effort, and you get to exercise and help the environment in the process. Sure, you could have got the same pleasure by staying at home, but the extra work at least need not *detract* from pleasure. If it's just as much fun doing nothing or achieving some goal, you could nudge up the pleasure associated with achieving the goal. And if you are naturally lazy and would prefer to do nothing, you could simply make yourself less lazy. To defeat this process you would have to not only be lazy, but to have laziness as a supergoal guiding your life. > for example, you could simply decide to be a stoic > > Well sure you COULD, but WOULD you? After a while you might notice that > being stoic isn't a lot of laughs. > > I'll crank up the happiness level just a tad, oh that's much better, maybe > just a little more, even better, just one more small increase won't hurt > anything..... You could alter your mind so that you don't want to do this. People deny themselves pleasures all the time in pursuit of some supergoal, constantly struggling against temptation. How much easier would it be if you could just switch off a craving for cigarettes or sex or whatever? You could even set a mental timer: I will indulge in ecstasy for 100 years, then abstain for 100 years, and while abstinent I will have no desire to indulge. > Finally, what would be wrong with a life of continuous, undifferentiated > > pleasure? > > I wasn't making a value judgment; I was simply observing that drug > addiction > could be the reason that the universe does not appear to have been > engineered. It's possible. I think the final common pathway for posthuman existence will be eternal bliss in computer heaven. On the other hand, there will always be some individuals who avoid this end, and there will always be subprocesses whose job it is to tend the main computers, and perhaps also to explore the universe. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 02:43:51 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:43:51 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <036f01c76399$b6fcb7b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/11/07, Lee Corbin wrote: Stathis writes > > > On 3/11/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > How do you know that consciousness (and hence benefit over a life > worth living) > > > isn't dependent on entropy increase? > > > > Yes, I know that computations can be made reversible, but until a lot > more is > > > known about all this, I'll have my computations run in the forward > direction > > > with entropy increase, thank you. > > > The "real world" could run forwards while your mind runs backwards. > > That is a good argument, at least under Boltzmann's view. But that may be > wrong. > > > Imagine a virtual reality program is written with your entire life > mapped out, > > broken up into intervals. Each subprogram thus created will contain > memories > > of "past" intervals but not "future" intervals. > > Oh, that's the old 1994 Greg Egan scenario in Permutation City. Of > course. > > > The point is, if these programs were run forwards, backwards or all > jumbled up, > > you would not be able to tell that anything unusual had happened from > within > > the program. > > Of course, at least to outward observers. You would report what ever you > report. > It does not *necessarily* follow that you experience anything. Recall the > horrible > GLUT (Giant Lookup Table) which performs no computations but reports vived > > experiences. Given the set of all computations, those whose information content links them as related will feel themselves to be related, whether generated by a GLUT or a UD (whether it can be done in practice or not, as per Eugen's post, is another question). All the extra, useless, non-me-now computations going on in the world do not confuse me and stop me from feeling myself to be me-now, although they might confuse everyone else if, for example, I were teleporting around the universe or my program were being implemented a moment at a time on different computers. I concede that it is *possible* that I would have experiencs under reversed > computations; I dispute that it can be proven. What if your program were broken up into minutes and the minutes run in reverse order? You could be in such a program right now. Of course, you remember what you did last minute and don't know what's going to happen next minute, but that's just because that is the information contained in the minute presently running. How could you possibly know, without information from outside the program, when, where, or whether your other minutes were being run? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 12 02:51:52 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:51:52 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070311214150.022238b8@satx.rr.com> At 06:29 PM 3/11/2007 -0700, Stuart LaForge wrote: >Also Spartan women were somewhat fascinating as well. >Their whole tradition of sending their husbands off to >battle by giving them their shields and saying "with >this or on this" is rather powerful as they were in >effect saying "come back victorious, dead, or not at >all." How refreshingly Darwinian is that? Well, no, Stuart. It's no more "Darwinian" than any other strategy. Were the Athenians less Darwinian? And far from being "refreshing"--as Hamilton noted--evolution is a heinously heedless, mostly horrible process. (I'm fairly sure we agree about this, though.) Damien Broderick From rpicone at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 03:19:48 2007 From: rpicone at gmail.com (Robert Picone) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:19:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 3/11/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 3/12/07, John K Clark wrote: > > : Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > you could arbitrarily reassign the pleasure to goal-directed activity > > > > Well sure you COULD, but WOULD you? Grand and glorious goals are > > difficult > > to achieve and take a long time; much easier to just turn a knob and > > immediately get a rush of pride and satisfaction in a job well done. > > > Suppose you have the choice between driving to work or riding a bicycle to > work. Normally, you would choose to drive, because even though the bicycle > has advantages, it gets you places slower and sweatier. However, if you had > access to the source code of your mind, you could simply adjust things so > that the pleasure you get from the bicycle outweighs the inconvenience. > Thus, everyone wins: you enjoy yourself more than driving the car, even > though it's more effort, and you get to exercise and help the environment in > the process. Sure, you could have got the same pleasure by staying at home, > but the extra work at least need not *detract* from pleasure. If it's just > as much fun doing nothing or achieving some goal, you could nudge up the > pleasure associated with achieving the goal. And if you are naturally lazy > and would prefer to do nothing, you could simply make yourself less lazy. To > defeat this process you would have to not only be lazy, but to have laziness > as a supergoal guiding your life. > > > for example, you could simply decide to be a stoic > > > > Well sure you COULD, but WOULD you? After a while you might notice that > > being stoic isn't a lot of laughs. > > > > I'll crank up the happiness level just a tad, oh that's much better, > > maybe > > just a little more, even better, just one more small increase won't > > hurt > > anything..... > > > You could alter your mind so that you don't want to do this. People deny > themselves pleasures all the time in pursuit of some supergoal, constantly > struggling against temptation. How much easier would it be if you could just > switch off a craving for cigarettes or sex or whatever? You could even set a > mental timer: I will indulge in ecstasy for 100 years, then abstain for 100 > years, and while abstinent I will have no desire to indulge. > I think once we get to the point where one is altering one's own desire to alter one's self, things get a bit dangerous. The earlier feel of this conversation was more of a feel that the alteration and the effect were between two seperate entities, one's reasoning abilities and the pleasure or pain one receives, or goals/desires (Plato's pathos rather than logos). Once people start blocking out their ability to desire anything they may reason out, such as realizing they'd be ultimately happier basking in eternal pleasure, people can also block out other things that would be less productive. Do you honestly think most people would choose to block out their desire to want pleasure before they block out their desire to care about responsibility? Regardless of what condition a human may be, moments of relative weakness happen, and these are probably more common and more tempting than the moments of relative strength. I'd say your solution brings about more problems than it solves, even ignoring the results of making minor mistakes. Sensations themselves aren't overly troublesome for people to meddle with, as pressures not to become the "drug addict" could happen elsewhere, it's a job society has always taken on, instilling people with a sense of responsibility. On the other hand, if one could erase all of the influence of everything they've ever experienced on a whim (as long as this whim may take to enact itself), there's not much that could keep people from this fate... > Finally, what would be wrong with a life of continuous, undifferentiated > > > pleasure? > > > > I wasn't making a value judgment; I was simply observing that drug > > addiction > > could be the reason that the universe does not appear to have been > > engineered. > > > It's possible. I think the final common pathway for posthuman existence > will be eternal bliss in computer heaven. On the other hand, there will > always be some individuals who avoid this end, and there will always be > subprocesses whose job it is to tend the main computers, and perhaps also to > explore the universe. > > Stathis Papaioannou > > I find this end a rather unpleasant one... When someone one cares about decides the pressures are too much and forever joins computer heaven, and then other people dislike that and eventually join them, eventually the ones who avoided this fate are left in a fairly desolate existence, with progressively less conscious thought in the universe similar to their own rather than more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 04:12:03 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:12:03 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, Robert Picone wrote: > > On 3/11/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3/12/07, John K Clark wrote: > > > > : Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > > > you could arbitrarily reassign the pleasure to goal-directed > > > activity > > > > > > Well sure you COULD, but WOULD you? Grand and glorious goals are > > > difficult > > > to achieve and take a long time; much easier to just turn a knob and > > > immediately get a rush of pride and satisfaction in a job well done. > > > > > > Suppose you have the choice between driving to work or riding a bicycle > > to work. Normally, you would choose to drive, because even though the > > bicycle has advantages, it gets you places slower and sweatier. However, if > > you had access to the source code of your mind, you could simply adjust > > things so that the pleasure you get from the bicycle outweighs the > > inconvenience. Thus, everyone wins: you enjoy yourself more than driving the > > car, even though it's more effort, and you get to exercise and help the > > environment in the process. Sure, you could have got the same pleasure by > > staying at home, but the extra work at least need not *detract* from > > pleasure. If it's just as much fun doing nothing or achieving some goal, you > > could nudge up the pleasure associated with achieving the goal. And if you > > are naturally lazy and would prefer to do nothing, you could simply make > > yourself less lazy. To defeat this process you would have to not only be > > lazy, but to have laziness as a supergoal guiding your life. > > > > > for example, you could simply decide to be a stoic > > > > > > Well sure you COULD, but WOULD you? After a while you might notice > > > that > > > being stoic isn't a lot of laughs. > > > > > > I'll crank up the happiness level just a tad, oh that's much better, > > > maybe > > > just a little more, even better, just one more small increase won't > > > hurt > > > anything..... > > > > > > You could alter your mind so that you don't want to do this. People deny > > themselves pleasures all the time in pursuit of some supergoal, constantly > > struggling against temptation. How much easier would it be if you could just > > switch off a craving for cigarettes or sex or whatever? You could even set a > > mental timer: I will indulge in ecstasy for 100 years, then abstain for 100 > > years, and while abstinent I will have no desire to indulge. > > > > > I think once we get to the point where one is altering one's own desire to > alter one's self, things get a bit dangerous. The earlier feel of this > conversation was more of a feel that the alteration and the effect were > between two seperate entities, one's reasoning abilities and the pleasure or > pain one receives, or goals/desires (Plato's pathos rather than logos). > Once people start blocking out their ability to desire anything they may > reason out, such as realizing they'd be ultimately happier basking in > eternal pleasure, people can also block out other things that would be less > productive. Do you honestly think most people would choose to block out > their desire to want pleasure before they block out their desire to care > about responsibility? Regardless of what condition a human may be, moments > of relative weakness happen, and these are probably more common and more > tempting than the moments of relative strength. I'd say your solution > brings about more problems than it solves, even ignoring the results of > making minor mistakes. > I think people would rather choose to be happy doing something they feel is worthwhile than something useless. The reason people use drugs is not only that it feels good, but that it feels better than the alternative of going about their other responsibilities. If taking the dog for a walk could be made just as pleasurable as using cocaine, what reason is there to prefer using cocaine? Sensations themselves aren't overly troublesome for people to meddle with, > as pressures not to become the "drug addict" could happen elsewhere, it's a > job society has always taken on, instilling people with a sense of > responsibility. On the other hand, if one could erase all of the influence > of everything they've ever experienced on a whim (as long as this whim may > take to enact itself), there's not much that could keep people from this > fate... > You could erase all sense of responsibility and inhibitions; you could even decide that you want to become ecstatically happy being a mass murderer. However, why would you do this? The usual story is that someone has a desire to do something that will cause harm to himself or others and tries hard to resist the desire, although not always successfully. On balance, I think more people would choose to reconfigure what they consider harmful desires to eliminate them rather than remove inhibitions and indulge in them. Most addicts say they wish they weren't addicts. > Finally, what would be wrong with a life of continuous, undifferentiated > > > > pleasure? > > > > > > I wasn't making a value judgment; I was simply observing that drug > > > addiction > > > could be the reason that the universe does not appear to have been > > > engineered. > > > > > > It's possible. I think the final common pathway for posthuman existence > > will be eternal bliss in computer heaven. On the other hand, there will > > always be some individuals who avoid this end, and there will always be > > subprocesses whose job it is to tend the main computers, and perhaps also to > > explore the universe. > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > I find this end a rather unpleasant one... When someone one cares about > decides the pressures are too much and forever joins computer heaven, and > then other people dislike that and eventually join them, eventually the ones > who avoided this fate are left in a fairly desolate existence, with > progressively less conscious thought in the universe similar to their own > rather than more. It can never be the case that "the pressures are too much" if you can edit your own mind, unless you want it that way. If those not in computer heaven are unhappy about something they would rather not be unhappy about, they can simply make themselves happy: just as happy exploring the universe or cleaning up rubbish as they would be in the computer. If they're lonely they can create more friends, or alternatively remove the more unpleasant aspects of their lonely feelings, eg. "I want to remember and grieve the loss of my friend, but I don't want to be depressed as a result". Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Mon Mar 12 06:58:33 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6229.96842.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Suppose you have the choice between driving to work or riding a bicycle to work. Normally, you would choose to drive, because even though the bicycle has advantages, it gets you places slower and sweatier. However, if you had access to the source code of your mind, you could simply adjust things so that the pleasure you get from the bicycle outweighs the inconvenience. Thus, everyone wins: you enjoy yourself more than driving the car, even though it's more effort, and you get to exercise and help the environment in the process. Sure, you could have got the same pleasure by staying at home, but the extra work at least need not *detract* from pleasure. If it's just as much fun doing nothing or achieving some goal, you could nudge up the pleasure associated with achieving the goal. Anna: I have to mention that I find your examples quite interesting and motivating. Stathis: regarding: However, if you had access to the source code of your mind, you could simply adjust things so that the pleasure you get from the bicycle outweighs the inconvenience. Anna: If I had access to my own source code I could simply change everything about myself that I didn't like. It would be as easy as flipping a switch. It would seem like a walk in the park. Stathis: You could alter your mind so that you don't want to do this. People deny themselves pleasures all the time in pursuit of some supergoal, constantly struggling against temptation. How much easier would it be if you could just switch off a craving for cigarettes or sex or whatever? You could even set a mental timer: I will indulge in ecstasy for 100 years, then abstain for 100 years, and while abstinent I will have no desire to indulge. Anna: I think 100 years is a rather long time frame but I appreciate what you meant. I believe that you can alter your mind state if you choose. Describing how to do just that is very difficult. Any personal experiences that I can relate with? Thanks Stathis. I hope you continue to post to the Extropy Chat, I enjoy your posts. Have a great day! Anna:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Mon Mar 12 08:51:12 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:51:12 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Controlled by a cat parasite Message-ID: Whoa! Instead of finding drugs to alter our moods, let's infect ourselves with toxoplasmosis instead! OK, maybe not. I wonder if those cultures that value boys beyond the normal sex ratio would take to this? Or maybe they already are? Or maybe the parasite is the result of practices already in place, now in a feedback loop? Amara http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/11/cat_parasite_rules_o.html From Boing Boing Cat parasite rules our lives Vann sez, "As a follow-up to Cory's entry in January of last year on how toxoplasmosis may alter people's moods (women become more friendly; men become more paranoid), recent studies suggest that infection by the parasite may also cause people to become more prone to feeling guilty, develop schizophrenia, have auto accidents, or be born male." U.S. Geological Survey biologist Kevin Lafferty has linked high rates of toxoplasmosis infection in 39 countries with elevated incidences of neuroticism, suggesting the mind-altering organism may be affecting the cultures of nations. Stranger still, parasitologist Jaroslav Flegr of Charles University in Prague thinks T. gondii could also be skewing our sex ratios. When he looked at the clinical records of more than 1,800 babies born from 1996 to 2004, he noted a distinct trend: The normal sex ratio is 104 boys born for every 100 girls, but in women with high levels of antibodies against the parasite, the ratio was 260 boys for every 100 girls. Exactly how the parasite might be tipping the odds in favor of males isn't understood, but Flegr points out that it is known to suppress the immune system of its hosts, and because the maternal immune system sometimes attacks male fetuses in very early pregnancy, the parasite's ability to inhibit the immune response might protect future boys as well as itself. -- 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 stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 09:09:31 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:09:31 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <6229.96842.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6229.96842.qm@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, Anna Taylor wrote: --- Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Suppose you have the choice between driving to work or > riding a bicycle to work. Normally, you would choose > to drive, because even though the bicycle has > advantages, it gets you places slower and sweatier. > However, if you had access to the source code of your > mind, you could simply adjust things so that the > pleasure you get from the bicycle outweighs the > inconvenience. Thus, everyone wins: you enjoy yourself > more than driving the car, even though it's more > effort, and you get to exercise and help the > environment in the process. Sure, you could have got > the same pleasure by staying at home, but the extra > work at least need not *detract* from pleasure. If > it's just as much fun doing nothing or achieving some > goal, you could nudge up the pleasure associated with > achieving the goal. > > Anna: > I have to mention that I find your examples quite > interesting and motivating. > > Stathis: regarding: > However, if you had access to the source code of your > mind, you could simply adjust things so that the > pleasure you get from the bicycle outweighs the > inconvenience. > > Anna: > If I had access to my own source code I could simply > change everything about myself that I didn't like. > It would be as easy as flipping a switch. It would > seem like a walk in the park. That's right! You need never be unhappy with anything ever again, unless you wanted to experience unhappiness for some nostalgic reason. Stathis: > You could alter your mind so that you don't want to do > this. People deny themselves pleasures all the time in > pursuit of some supergoal, constantly struggling > against temptation. How much easier would it be if you > could just switch off a craving for cigarettes or sex > or whatever? You could even set a mental timer: I will > indulge in ecstasy for 100 years, then abstain for 100 > years, and while abstinent I will have no desire to > indulge. > > Anna: > I think 100 years is a rather long time frame but I > appreciate what you meant. I believe that you can > alter your mind state if you choose. Describing how > to do just that is very difficult. Any personal > experiences that I can relate with? > I'm afraid I'm the sort of person who just takes the car if it's easier! There are ways of motivating yourself to do things you don't really feel like doing, ranging from just gritting your teeth and doing it to cognitive behavioural therapy to psychotropic medication (eg. bupropion to stop smoking, naltrexone to stop drinking or using opioids). However, these are all very crude and inefficient compared to the ideal of editing your own mind at will. I think this will be a given if we live as computer uploads, but before then we will probably have increasingly specific medication and brain-computer interfaces which will give almost as much control. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Mar 12 09:21:30 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:21:30 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Controlled by a cat parasite In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1128.86.130.28.24.1173691290.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Amara Graps wrote: > Whoa! > > Instead of finding drugs to alter our moods, let's infect ourselves with > toxoplasmosis instead! OK, maybe not. Hmm, maybe Thomas Dish was onto something with his spirochete-based cognition enhancement in _Camp Concentration_? Having symbiotic organisms as enhancements isn't a bad idea. My favorite idea is designer gut bacteria that can be made to manufacture drugs on demand. > I wonder if those cultures that value boys beyond the normal sex ratio > would take to this? Or maybe they already are? Or maybe the parasite > is the result of practices already in place, now in a feedback loop? There is also evidence that hepatitis leads to more boys. When that came out some people began to question whether the claims of gender selection in China and India were excessive; this looks like it could contribute to a natural explanation. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 09:22:31 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:22:31 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> On 3/12/07, Robert Picone wrote: > Regardless of what condition a human may be, moments of relative weakness > happen, and these are probably more common and more tempting than the > moments of relative strength. I'd say your solution brings about more > problems than it solves, even ignoring the results of making minor mistakes. > > If I had source level write access to myself, the first thing I'd do would be to put a 7-day lock on it: any change I try to make goes into a pipeline with a 7 day delay and the option to cancel at any point during that time. If self-modification is ever legalized in any society even slightly similar to ours, I imagine there'll be some such safeguards on it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 09:30:32 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070311214150.022238b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <961677.28790.qm@web60520.mail.yahoo.com> --- Damien Broderick wrote: > Well, no, Stuart. It's no more "Darwinian" than any > other strategy. > Were the Athenians less Darwinian? Well to be technically precise no. But the Spartans were in my opinion more primal and their candor regarding it was refreshing. Freud observed that civilization is but a thin veneer over baser instincts. The Spartans didn't bother much with the veneer. > And far from > being > "refreshing"--as Hamilton noted--evolution is a > heinously heedless, > mostly horrible process. (I'm fairly sure we agree > about this, though.) Evolution is indeed callously indifferent but I would not go so far as to call it "heinous" or "horrible" as there is no actual malice in nature, only blind impartiality. I see nature differently than Hobbes and his "red in tooth and claw". The fox may run after the hare and the hare may run from the fox but in the end both are running for their lives and it's a fair race. There is a certain cold hard beauty in that and a degree of iron-handed justice too. At least from the point of view of all the poor carrots that the hare massacred. When it comes to evolution, I try not to get so hung up the thorns that I miss the rose. Or the occasional Damien that happens to evolve for that matter. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 09:58:03 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:58:03 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 3/12/07, Robert Picone wrote: > > > Regardless of what condition a human may be, moments of relative > > weakness happen, and these are probably more common and more tempting than > > the moments of relative strength. I'd say your solution brings about more > > problems than it solves, even ignoring the results of making minor mistakes. > > > > > > > If I had source level write access to myself, the first thing I'd do would > be to put a 7-day lock on it: any change I try to make goes into a pipeline > with a 7 day delay and the option to cancel at any point during that time. > If self-modification is ever legalized in any society even slightly similar > to ours, I imagine there'll be some such safeguards on it. > It's not really that different now, is it? People impulsively make all sorts of bad decisions. At least with self-modification you will likely choose a more salubrious goal. How often have you thought, "gee, I wish I were suicidal/ a smack addict/ a serial killer"? Even the basest types generally pay lip service to noble supergoals, and if the effort towards achieving these supergoals can easily be made more rewarding than doing nothing or doing something destructive, why would anyone choose to choose doing nothing or doing something destructive? There are no guarantees where free agents are concerned, but I feel that in general a world where everyone has chosen what sort of person they are will be a more moral and more productive world than the present one. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 09:54:48 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:54:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Controlled by a cat parasite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <847175.71771.qm@web60513.mail.yahoo.com> --- Amara Graps wrote: > Whoa! > > Instead of finding drugs to alter our moods, let's > infect ourselves with > toxoplasmosis instead! OK, maybe not. > I wonder if those cultures that value boys beyond > the normal sex ratio > would take to this? Or maybe they already are? Or > maybe the parasite > is the result of practices already in place, now in > a feedback loop? I hope not. The world needs a lot of things right now but a surplus of paranoid men is not one of them. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 12:36:54 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:36:54 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, The Avantguardian wrote: > > I certainly do, Amara. I have ever since I read "The > Lion in the Gateway" when I was twelve. The Spartans > are an archetype of courage, skill, and tactical > prowess. The battle of Thermopylae is a textbook > example of the power of proper choice of battlefield > that is still discussed in military schools today. > > As far as your more general point goes, I agree with > you there as well. There is a large amount of utility > in warriors, weapons, and the martial arts. Whether > that utility is positive or negative in sign depends > mostly on which side of the thin red line you are on. > > One of the more interesting thing about the Spartans > were that they were for the most part independent > "stay at homes". While they did take over a good chunk > of the Greek peninsula in the Peloponnesian Wars, that > was the extent of their imperial ambitions. On the > evil empire scale, it falls far short of the likes of > Persia, Macedonia, Carthage, and Rome. > > In fact neither Phillip II nor Alexander the Great > could threaten or convince the Spartans into helping > create a Greek/Macedonian empire. To be an independent > state in Alexander the Great's own backyard is quite > an accomplishment in my view, considering that Thebes > was burnt to the ground for challenging him. > > As a side note, Sparta's tradition of leaving babies > who were weak out in the wild was probably the first > recorded example of a eugenics program of which I am > aware. Unfortunately it probably also hastened their > decline by keeping their numbers low. > > Also Spartan women were somewhat fascinating as well. > Their whole tradition of sending their husbands off to > battle by giving them their shields and saying "with > this or on this" is rather powerful as they were in > effect saying "come back victorious, dead, or not at > all." How refreshingly Darwinian is that? > > There is much mythology written about the Spartans. Mainly because the Spartans produced very little written documentation. Almost all the ancient history source documents were written by outsiders, mostly Athenians, or pro-Athenians. Plato idealized Sparta as an example of his philosophy. The Spartans didn't have written laws, for example. The men were all soldiers. Even when they conquered Athens, their dislike of politics and admin meant that they couldn't rule it for long. The 30 Tyrants dictatorship that they installed hardly lasted a year. The lack of written historical sources has not stopped many people speculating about Sparta. Even some of the ancient Athenian writers are probably of dubious quality. Ancient historians were poets and story-tellers, not pedantic academics like we have today. We have to be careful about imposing our modern myths on ancient civilizations. Sparta was a very brutal, physical place. Education was training for war. Scholarship had no place there. Spartans were absolutely debarred by law from trade or manufacture. Spending your life being trained to become an efficient killing machine is not what I would call civilization. You can admire their expertise and single-mindedness, just as you would any dedicated endeavour, but it was a failure of humanity. They changed themselves into a tool, an efficient implement of war, at the expense of almost everything else. Certainly, we effete first world nations do require an efficient killing machine to defend ourselves from the barbarians at the gate. But our robot warriors should be able to do that while we carry on listening to our iPods and discussing the latest celebrity gossip. BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 13:00:18 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:00:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> On 3/12/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > It's not really that different now, is it? People impulsively make all sorts > of bad decisions. At least with self-modification you will likely choose a > more salubrious goal. How often have you thought, "gee, I wish I were > suicidal/ a smack addict/ a serial killer"? Even the basest types generally > pay lip service to noble supergoals, and if the effort towards achieving > these supergoals can easily be made more rewarding than doing nothing or > doing something destructive, why would anyone choose to choose doing nothing > or doing something destructive? There are no guarantees where free agents > are concerned, but I feel that in general a world where everyone has chosen > what sort of person they are will be a more moral and more productive world > than the present one. You are an optimist. I doubt anybody chooses deliberately to be at the bottom, they end up there by circumstances that are either beyond their ability to control (or are perceived to be beyond their control) If radical self-modification is literally as easy as turning a knob, don't you think marketers will have perfected the tactics for influencing which direction it gets turned? "You think Brand X is good, just wait until you experience ecstatic bliss for Brand Y* [bliss not guaranteed until you relinquish control of your BlissControl(tm) to the parent company of Brand Y] As if meme's were not already potentially dangerous enough mind viruses, enable actual manipulation of a population's motivational goal systems. We are going to need to learn more effective anti-mind-virus and mind-firewalls techniques to manage this potential problem. From jonkc at att.net Mon Mar 12 15:10:45 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:10:45 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com><002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer><007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <013801c764b8$dc8ee1e0$a8044e0c@MyComputer> Stathis Papaioannou Wrote: > Most addicts say they wish they weren't addicts. So just turn a knob, now you have changed your mind, and I do mean CHANGED YOUR MIND. Now you think being a drug addict is the noblest most fulfilling most enjoyable profession that is conceivable. So you think my idea is stupid, no problem, just turn another knob, now you think my idea is absolutely brilliant. Complex mechanisms just don't do well in positive feedback loops, not electronics, not animals, not people, not ET's, and not even Jupiter brains. > I think people would rather choose to be happy doing something they feel > is worthwhile than something useless. That is certainly the case today, but my point is that may not always be true. Doing something worthwhile is more difficult and thus rarer than the trivial, it follows that to maximize pleasure you should get it from the trivial not the profound. Wow! Look at that pretty red rubber ball bounce up and down, it's marvelous! 1,2,3,4... John K Clark PS: I wish people would stop including quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes. If this tread goes on much longer responses will be completely unreadable. From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Mar 12 16:46:14 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:46:14 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] AI and the law already In-Reply-To: References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070311141725.03e97ce0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <55443.86.153.216.201.1173717974.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> gts wrote: >> but if AIs now need a license... > > They don't. > > I was going to comment about what a strange and remarkable legal decision > this seems to be, but then I read the article and realized what should > have been obvious: contrary to the headline and the words in the first > paragraph, the judge did not actually rule that "the software was > effectively practicing law without a license". The ruling was against the > human seller of the computerized legal service, of course. Which to some extent is a ruling against the human+AI system. Only the human part has a legal standing, but it is the absence of a accredited lawyer part of the system that is the legal problem. One might imagine a future version where there is indeed a lawyer in the system, but most of the interaction is going on anyway through the AI. At that point I guess the law has to become more firm on how tight the coupling has to be between the lawyer and the AI; likely it would not be enough that the AI was doing all the work and the lawyer was just sipping tea all day. AI rights are much simpler than rights and responsibilities for this kind of composite systems. But if we can get them right, maybe it is possible to apply the same kinds of reasoning to densely connected by composite systems like human minds. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Mar 12 18:48:33 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:48:33 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times: Electricity from the Sea Message-ID: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> As a resident in an oceanfront community, I'm all for this, especially when our community is looking down the barrel (pun not intended) of Schwarzenegger-supported LNG platforms for Bulliton right off our coast, to add to the existing oil platforms, in a tsunami and earthquake zone no less... Interesting graphics accompany the article, in that the one thing each of the three systems had in common was... Scotland. Two of the three technologies was from a Scotland-based company. The third used Scotland as a testing ground. Leave it to those practical Scots to take what they've got a heap of and make lemonade. PJ http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wave11mar11,1,3504409.story Electricity from the sea Dreams of converting ocean energy into electricity move closer to commercial reality. By Adrian G. Uribarri Times Staff Writer 7:42 PM PST, March 10, 2007 Off the western coast of Scotland, on the Isle of Islay, science teacher Ray Husthwaite turns on the light in his classroom. The electricity comes from a power cable that runs to the mainland. But it also comes from the ocean. A few miles from the school, wave action compresses and decompresses air in a chamber. The moving air powers a turbine, which generates electricity. "It is pleasant, on a choppy but sunny day, to sit beside the gray, concrete structure and listen to the rising and falling of the waves, driving air through the turbines like the breath of a great sea monster," Husthwaite said. "It seems insane to me to be investing in nuclear power stations and gas turbines when there are endless, free energy resources in the rivers, oceans and the wind." In a world addicted to fossil fuel, turning waves into watts might seem far-fetched. But as the U.S. and other countries look for alternatives to oil, natural gas and coal and try to curb global warming, ocean power gradually is joining the ranks of wind and solar power as a source of renewable energy. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. caught the wave last month when it became the first California utility to file for permits to study the promise of sea power, a non-polluting but expensive and mostly untested way to take energy from the ocean. PG&E's proposed projects could provide electricity for tens of thousands of homes, said Keely Wachs, spokesman for the San Francisco-based utility. "More importantly, it's clean and totally renewable." PG&E joins a global list of organizations experimenting with harnessing ocean power. In less than three years, U.S. energy regulators have received nearly five dozen applications for water-related energy projects from South Florida to Washington state. Islay's wave-power converter, the Limpet 500, has been operating since 2000. In Hawaii, the Navy has been churning up electrons with the help of a floating buoy. And in Portugal, engineers are installing snakelike tubes designed to convert the sea's motion into electricity. "We're going to decide one way or another to displace the use of fossil fuel by clean fuel," said Roger Bedard, ocean energy leader at the Electric Power Research Institute, a utility industry think tank in Palo Alto. "And our grandchildren are going to understand the consequences of that decision." Anyone who has ever been slammed to the sand by a wave can attest that the ocean packs tremendous power. Technology can harness that energy in several ways. Some designs, like the Limpet, use waves to push air through a column. Others convert the sea's up-and-down motion into mechanical energy. While U.S. regulators categorize wave power as hydropower, it differs from other methods of generating energy from water. Tidal power, for instance, relies on the gravitational force of the sun and the moon to provide energy. Wave power is less predictable than tidal power, but experts consider it more potent. The California Energy Commission estimates that the state's 1,100-mile coastline could generate seven to 17 megawatts a mile, enough power per mile to serve as many as 13,000 average homes. One wave-power company executive told a congressional committee last year that several hundred square miles off the California coast could supply the electrical needs of all of the homes in the state. The allure of wave power is so strong that the number of organizations filing for permits has surged, causing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to get tough on applicants. "We label it as a stricter-scrutiny approach," commission spokeswoman Celeste Miller said. That means more frequent progress reports and greater consultation with federal, state and local agencies are required. In California, interest in ocean power is so new that some state regulators aren't exactly sure who has permitting authority over projects in state waters. Regulators are considering putting together a multiagency working group, probably led by the California Energy Commission, on how to deal with ocean power projects, said Alison Dettmer, manager of the energy and ocean resources unit of the California Coastal Commission. Although wave power doesn't create pollution, that doesn't mean environmentalists and others don't have concerns. Questions have been raised about potential harm to marine life, the coastline, fishing and boating operations and ocean views. "At this point it's all pretty preliminary," said Vicki Frey, environmental scientist at the California Department of Fish and Game. "We will comment as we would on any project regarding potential impacts to marine resources." PG&E will be studying all aspects of how the projects affect the environment, said Kevin Butler, director of new resource procurement at PG&E's energy supply department. "There's a variety of stakeholders," Butler said. "We're going to be in touch with communities to make sure we have a satisfactory solution." If it passes regulatory muster, PG&E must still deal with wave power's other challenges, including cost and a short history of commercial use. Bedard estimated that generating power from waves costs about seven times more than using natural gas and about six times more than using wind. "Wave is a brand-new technology," Bedard said, "and there's a market barrier that new technologies have to overcome. How does a new technology compete with something that's been around for a long, long time?" One way, he said, is through incentives like the ones California gives homeowners who install solar panels. If the government doesn't subsidize wave power, the utility could be risking an initial loss on the expense of installing such new technology. "We're trying to increase the supply of renewable energy at this point," Butler said, "and we'll let the supply dynamic lower prices." The plan could be feasible. In some parts of Texas, for example, the cost of generating electricity from wind is cheaper than using natural gas, Bedard said. PG&E, a subsidiary of PG&E Corp., is asking regulators for the right to study wave-power projects at two Northern California sites. One, off Humboldt County, would be spread across 136 square miles. The second, off Mendocino County's coast, would be 68 square miles. The final locations, known as "wave farms," would be as close as half a mile from the coast or as far as 10 miles offshore. The utility plans to spend $3 million studying the sites. The permits it is seeking from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would prevent other entities from developing the areas for three years. To move from research to development, the utility would file for a license. The wave-power projects would fit the utility's renewable energy strategy. About 55% of the energy PG&E delivers to its customers is generated without producing carbon dioxide, and more than 12% is certified as renewable under California guidelines. If installed as planned, the wave-power projects would add 80 megawatts to the grid, equal to 7% of the company's current renewable energy output. "We don't think that's insignificant," Wachs said. Still, the utility must prove to regulators ? and shareholders ? that a young technology can be effective in commercial use. During its study, it must also decide which of several wave-power technology companies has the design to suit California's coast. Islay's Limpet system may not fly in California because it's embedded in a cliff ? a no-no with environmentalists. Portugal's slinky Pelamis isn't exactly eye candy, making it a possible weak spot with oceanfront property owners. And the PowerBuoy system, in use at a Navy base in Hawaii, has yet to supply significant amounts of power. "Many of these wave-power companies have limited at-sea experience," said Andrea Gill, an energy conservation analyst at the Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. "We still don't have long-term data on how much electricity is coming out of these guys." PG&E declined to comment on which technologies it was considering. But Gill said that, judging by the growing number of contenders, the utility may opt for something other than the Limpet, PowerBuoy or Pelamis. She cited examples such as a Danish device with parabolic arms and a Scottish machine that swings back and forth with each wave. Regardless of the technology it chooses, Gill said, the utility was taking a leadership role by considering wave power. "There's just a growing acceptance that renewable energy's time has come, and actually, it came some time ago. But people just weren't acting as fast." adrian.uribarri at latimes.com From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 12 18:27:05 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:27:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] AI and the law already In-Reply-To: <55443.86.153.216.201.1173717974.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070311141725.03e97ce0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <55443.86.153.216.201.1173717974.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:46:14 -0400, Anders Sandberg wrote: > One might imagine a future version where there is indeed a lawyer in the > system,but most of the interaction is going on anyway through the AI. Yes. In that situation I would hope and expect no serious legal challenges; I would guess the courts would uphold the attorney's right to practice law using his AI as a 'tool' for servicing clients. Nobody seems to question tax accountants who use similar but less advanced software tools today. > At that point I guess the law has to become more firm on how tight the > coupling has to be > between the lawyer and the AI; likely it would not be enough that the AI > was doing all the work and the lawyer was just sipping tea all day. Probably so. It will be interesting to watch these legal developments. Eventually the judges could end up sipping tea along with the lawyers... :) -gts From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Mar 12 19:36:53 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:36:53 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: email formatting Message-ID: <1353063.282061173728213821.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >FYI: yr extropes posts still arrive in email form >looking like this; it's almost unreadable, alas. > >Damien > >At 02:48 PM 3/12/2007 -0400, you wrote: >>As a resident in an oceanfront community, I'm >>all for this, especially when our community is >>looking down the barrel (pun not intended) of >>Schwarzenegger-supported LNG platforms for >>Bulliton right off our coast, to add to the >>existing oil platforms, in a tsunami and >>earthquake zone no less... Interesting graphics >>accompany the article, in that the one thing >>each of the three systems had in common was... >>Scotland. Two of the three technologies was >>from a Scotland-based company. The third used >>Scotland as a testing ground. Leave it to those >>practical Scots to take what they've got a heap >>of and make lemonade. PJ >>http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wave11mar11,1,3504409.story >>Electricity from the sea Dreams of converting >>ocean energy into electricity move closer to >>commercial reality. By Adrian G. Uribarri Times >>Staff Writer 7:42 PM PST, March 10, 2007 Off the >>western coast of Scotland, on the Isle of Islay, SHIT! Does it look that way to everyone??? It (not surprisingly) comes back to me looking just fine. This email system I'm using, which comes with my website hosting package, has precious little customization allowed -- pretty much just chosing between HTML and text-only. If everyone is getting unformatted emails, I'll have to change my email address yet again... Question to Damien: do my personal emails to you look the same way? Any help or insight from anyone will be greatly appreciated. SHIT! (Can you tell I hate this stuff?) PJ From mbb386 at main.nc.us Mon Mar 12 19:49:15 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:49:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: email formatting In-Reply-To: <1353063.282061173728213821.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <1353063.282061173728213821.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <33076.72.236.102.86.1173728955.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > SHIT! > > Does it look that way to everyone??? It (not surprisingly) comes back to me looking > just fine. This email system I'm using, which comes with my website hosting > package, has precious little customization allowed -- pretty much just chosing > between HTML and text-only. If everyone is getting unformatted emails, I'll have to > change my email address yet again... PJ, your messages look fine to me. What email system are you using? I have SquirrelMail. I hope to go back to Pine someday, but we need to do some computer work first. ;) Sure do hope mine look ok! :) Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 19:53:36 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:53:36 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: email formatting In-Reply-To: <1353063.282061173728213821.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <1353063.282061173728213821.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, pjmanney wrote: > >FYI: yr extropes posts still arrive in email form > >looking like this; it's almost unreadable, alas. > > > >Damien > > Your emails are fine in gmail. Other of your emails where you quote previous emails are also fine in gmail. But it is generally best to avoid HTML posting, though. Lots of people get problems reading HTML mail, including the mail server archive software. (MBs emails are also OK in gmail). BillK From jay.dugger at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 19:55:24 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:55:24 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] AI and the law already In-Reply-To: References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070311141725.03e97ce0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <55443.86.153.216.201.1173717974.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <5366105b0703121255m7bfbb9eal87c6c21fc28f6ee3@mail.gmail.com> 1451 Monday, 12 March 2007 On 3/12/07, gts wrote: > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:46:14 -0400, Anders Sandberg > wrote: > > > One might imagine a future version where there is indeed a lawyer in the > > system,but most of the interaction is going on anyway through the AI. > > Yes. In that situation I would hope and expect no serious legal > challenges; I would guess the courts would uphold the attorney's right to > practice law using his AI as a 'tool' for servicing clients. Nobody seems > to question tax accountants who use similar but less advanced software > tools today. > > > At that point I guess the law has to become more firm on how tight the > > coupling has to be > > between the lawyer and the AI; likely it would not be enough that the AI > > was doing all the work and the lawyer was just sipping tea all day. > > Probably so. It will be interesting to watch these legal developments. > > Eventually the judges could end up sipping tea along with the lawyers... :) > More likely we end up with a market for human identities as the "silent partner" in all manner of contracts that might otherwise only involve machine-to-machine communication and mediation. The germ of a science fiction short story lies in that idea, but it someone might already have written it. David Gerrold wrote something very similar in his book, A Day for Damnation about "The Baby Hooper Dollar Bill." (title?) -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Mar 12 20:01:30 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:01:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: email formatting Message-ID: <23456591.286111173729690347.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Bill K wrote: >Your emails are fine in gmail. >Other of your emails where you quote previous emails are also fine in gmail. Thanks so much for that. Phew! Okay, so it's a more localized problem. I still wonder what it is, though. Anna had said a couple of months ago that my archived posts in the extropy archive looked unformatted, too. But I couldn't see it. >But it is generally best to avoid HTML posting, though. Lots of people >get problems reading HTML mail, including the mail server archive >software. Oh, I already learned that lesson. I send everything in text-only to the lists. PJ From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Mar 12 20:20:16 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:20:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:29 PM 3/11/2007 -0700, Stuart LaForge wrote: >--- Amara Graps wrote: > > > BillK and others: > > > > This has probably occurred to you, but if not: > > > > The Spartans, were as different from the Athenians > > as one could possibly > > be, yet at the end, they were the people who likely > > saved them. > > > > Isn't that interesting? Now do you see why I don't > > think it is wise > > to reject that part of ourselves? > >I certainly do, Amara. I have ever since I read "The >Lion in the Gateway" when I was twelve. The Spartans >are an archetype of courage, skill, and tactical >prowess. The battle of Thermopylae is a textbook >example of the power of proper choice of battlefield >that is still discussed in military schools today. > >As far as your more general point goes, I agree with >you there as well. There is a large amount of utility >in warriors, weapons, and the martial arts. Whether >that utility is positive or negative in sign depends >mostly on which side of the thin red line you are on. And *why* is there utility? I.e., why do people fight wars at all? http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf Anthropological Quarterly, 73.1 (2000), 20-34. THE HUMAN MOTIVATIONAL COMPLEX : EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE CAUSES OF HUNTER-GATHERER FIGHTING Azar Gat Part I: Primary Somatic and Reproductive Causes snip Keith Henson From eugen at leitl.org Mon Mar 12 21:05:45 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:05:45 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: email formatting In-Reply-To: <33076.72.236.102.86.1173728955.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <1353063.282061173728213821.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <33076.72.236.102.86.1173728955.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <20070312210545.GI31912@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:49:15PM -0400, MB wrote: > PJ, your messages look fine to me. Same thing over here. > What email system are you using? I have SquirrelMail. I hope to go back to Pine > someday, but we need to do some computer work first. ;) Don't bother with pine, go for mutt. Mutt + screen rock my world. In .bashrc (assuming, you're single user in your (v)server) : mutt () { if ps x | grep [m]utt; then echo "You already have a mutt running - reattaching" screen -U -d -r mutt return 1; fi screen -U -S mutt mutt -f mbox } In .procmailrc (no MAILDIR, plain mbox): SHELL=/bin/sh DEFAULT=/home/eugen/mbox LOGFILE=/home/eugen/procmail.log :0fw | /usr/bin/spamassassin -P :0: * ^X-Spam-Flag: YES spam blah blah blah, e.g.: :0: * ^From:.*@cambridgesoft spam :0: * ^From:.*jonano at gmail.com twits more blahblah as above :0: $DEFAULT -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 21:33:01 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:33:01 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times: Electricity from the Sea In-Reply-To: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: For me, at least in both gmail and pine, the messages look like standard Windows-1252 text. Both gmail and pine seem to process it to scale with window size. Exported it ends up in standard ascii text with lines something like 77 characters long, also "standard". If someone is ending up with shorter lines I'd say it is due to their email receiving program. Not that I haven't seen the phenomena described *in* gmail. It usually involves someone cutting and pasting (or forwarding) an alternate news source which was in narrow column format. This tends to be a function of *how* the cut & paste function works on their combination of O.S. + Window Manager + Email program. For example, cutting and pasting "text" under Linux + Gnome + Firefox + Gmail is problematic if the "text" being manipulated happens to contain those funny Windows quote characters or the m-dash or a host of other "non-ascii" characters (pounds, euros, funny European character set characters, etc.). But it works fine if you avoid those characters. I suspect some sort of similar problem occurs with various OS + mail program combinations where one has to convert back and forth between lines of unspecified width and lines of a fixed width. Always bear this in mind. The "line terminator" character convention is a function of the O.S. The cut and paste conventions are a function of the window manager and to a lesser extent the "Language" you are working in. But it is very easy to fall into a pit when the messages are in one "language" convention, e.g. Windows-1252 but your Window manager and/or email systems are working in a different character set and/or language. Before one curses the sender, one might want to curse Microsoft for defining its own set of standards which is different from those which are internationally accepted. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 12 21:50:17 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:50:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PJ's quotes and email clients In-Reply-To: References: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312164359.022fe5d8@satx.rr.com> At 09:33 PM 3/12/2007 +0000, Robert wrote: >If someone is ending up with shorter lines I'd say it is due to >their email receiving program. No, that was a fresh anomaly. What Eudora shows me with PJ's posts that quote an article from another source (but not with her ordinary emails) is one long unparagraphed blurt like the following--assuming that's how the following looks to everyone else: ================ As a resident in an oceanfront community, I'm all for this, especially when our community is looking down the barrel (pun not intended) of Schwarzenegger-supported LNG platforms for Bulliton right off our coast, to add to the existing oil platforms, in a tsunami and earthquake zone no less... Interesting graphics accompany the article, in that the one thing each of the three systems had in common was... Scotland. Two of the three technologies was from a Scotland-based company. The third used Scotland as a testing ground. Leave it to those practical Scots to take what they've got a heap of and make lemonade. PJ http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wave11mar11,1,3504409.story Electricity from the sea Dreams of converting ocean energy into electricity move closer to commercial reality. By Adrian G. Uribarri Times Staff Writer 7:42 PM PST, March 10, 2007 Off the western coast of Scotland, on the Isle of Islay, science teacher Ray Husthwaite turns on the light in his classroom. The electricity comes from a power cable that runs to the mainland. But it also comes from the ocean. A few miles from the school, wave action compresses and decompresses air in a chamber. The moving air powers a turbine, which generates electricity. "It is pleasant, on a choppy but sunny day, to sit beside the gray, concrete structure and listen to the rising and falling of the waves, driving air through the turbines like the breath of a great sea monster," Husthwaite said. "It seems insane to me to be investing in nuclear power stations and gas turbines when there are endless, free energy resources in the rivers, oceans and the wind." In a world addicted to fossil fuel, turning waves into watts might seem far-fetched. But as the U.S. and other countries look for alternatives to oil, natural gas and coal and try to curb global warming, ocean power gradually is joining the ranks of wind and solar power as a source of renewable energy. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. caught the wave last month when it became the first California utility to file for permits to study the promise of sea power, a non-polluting but expensive and mostly untested way to take energy from the ocean. PG&E's proposed projects could provide electricity for tens of thousands of homes, said Keely Wachs, spokesman for the San Francisco-based utility. "More importantly, it's clean and totally renewable." PG&E joins a global list of organizations experimenting with harnessing ocean power. In less than three years, U.S. energy regulators have received nearly five dozen ====================== I'm using the current non-sponsored version of Eudora, licensed and paid for by the University of Melbourne, so I'd expect it to know how to unpack most messages. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 12 22:02:43 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:02:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] PJ's quotes and email clients In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312164359.022fe5d8@satx.rr.com> References: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312164359.022fe5d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312170010.022cf0a0@satx.rr.com> At 04:50 PM 3/12/2007 -0500, I wrote: >What Eudora shows me with PJ's posts that quote an article from >another source (but not with her ordinary emails) is one long >unparagraphed blurt like the following--assuming that's how the >following looks to everyone else: > >================ > >As a resident in an oceanfront community, I'm all for this, >especially when our community is looking down the barrel (pun not Actually, what I see is worse than that, because although the quoted lines do wrap, they run all the way across the screen first, so the screen is wall-to-wall wordage. Must be a Eudora weakness. Curses. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 12 22:19:15 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:19:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mark Plus on Keith Henson Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312171703.022eec90@satx.rr.com> A rather hostile blog entry by a sometime-transhumanist having second thoughts: http://transsurvivalist.blogspot.com/2007/02/keith-hensons-role-in-failed-futures.html From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 22:19:42 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:19:42 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] PJ's quotes and email clients In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312170010.022cf0a0@satx.rr.com> References: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312164359.022fe5d8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312170010.022cf0a0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Actually, what I see is worse than that, because although the quoted > lines do wrap, they run all the way across the screen first, so the > screen is wall-to-wall wordage. > > Must be a Eudora weakness. Curses. > If it's any comfort, pj's article quoting formatting is lost in the exi-chat archives also. See: So there is some funny stuff going on when she does 'copy and paste' to insert an article into her email. Gmail can handle it OK. But obviously the mail archive software and Eudora can't. BillK From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Mar 12 22:31:18 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:31:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses Message-ID: <24821667.309541173738678516.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Hello all, I'm looking for information regarding (ideally) constant, low-heat energy for my fictional brain chip. Any thoughts? Anyone seen research in body-produced energy sources for prostheses? I'm not coming up with much. I must be using the wrong words for Google, because I could have sworn I read something about this somewhere... Thanks! PJ From ben at goertzel.org Mon Mar 12 22:36:37 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:36:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <24821667.309541173738678516.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <24821667.309541173738678516.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <45F5D5F5.2080608@goertzel.org> pjmanney wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm looking for information regarding (ideally) constant, low-heat energy for my fictional brain chip. > > Any thoughts? Anyone seen research in body-produced energy sources for prostheses? I'm not coming up with much. I must be using the wrong words for Google, because I could have sworn I read something about this somewhere... > > Thanks! > > PJ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > I think there is a watch somewhere that is powered by energy generated by people swinging their arms back and forth... From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 12 22:53:02 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:53:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com><02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><036f01c76399$b6fcb7b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen points out that the visible universe doesn't have enough compute power for a GLUT (giant look-up table capable of passing an extremely thorough Turing Test to the point that no difference between its behavior and that of a human is detectable). Firstly, this is an argument about principle. It shouldn't depend either on timescale nor on contingent astronomy facts. According to Tegmark, anyway, the universe is infinite; again, even if we can never reach certain parts of it receding from us, so what? We don't want to depend on arguments that work only in our universe, but not in other MWI branches totally identical to ours except for astronomical facts. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 12 23:02:45 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:02:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <45F5D5F5.2080608@goertzel.org> References: <24821667.309541173738678516.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <45F5D5F5.2080608@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312180126.0244e780@satx.rr.com> At 06:36 PM 3/12/2007 -0400, Ben wrote: >I think there is a watch somewhere that is powered by energy generated >by people swinging their arms back and forth... Ah, a brain chip powered by *nodding*! Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 12 23:06:19 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:06:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: cryonicist living life in reverse References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com><02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><036f01c76399$b6fcb7b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <041801c764fb$80033050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > > > The point is, if these programs were run forwards, backwards or all jumbled up, > > > you would not be able to tell that anything unusual had happened from within > > > the program. > > Of course, at least to outward observers. You would report what ever you report. > > It does not *necessarily* follow that you experience anything. Recall the horrible > > GLUT (Giant Lookup Table [capable of total emulation of a human being]) which > > performs no computations but reports vived experiences. > Given the set of all computations, those whose information content links them as > related will feel themselves to be related, whether generated by a GLUT or a UD This is your assertion. It's not an argument. > All the extra, useless, non-me-now computations going on in the world do not > confuse me and stop me from feeling myself to be me-now, although they might > confuse everyone else if, for example, I were teleporting around the universe or > my program were being implemented a moment at a time on different computers. Well, that's right, yes. > > I concede that it is *possible* that I would have experiencs under reversed > > computations; I dispute that it can be proven. > What if your program were broken up into minutes and the minutes run in reverse > order? Then within each minute, future states would causally depend on past states, and yes, I'd be conscious. But that's because valid computations would be being performed within each of those minutes. But if the states are merely *stored* and then recalled (either in forward or reverse order), no computations are taking place! Imagine a 3D movie, a version of "Casablanca" that manipulated each of the atoms in Humphrey Bogart's body around for him. Unless the instants were causally connected, Bogart wouldn't be there, either as character or as actor. No computation, no Cafe Americain. But isn't this really not germane to your main argument? Aren't you really claiming that the laws of physics are time-reversible, and so a completely deterministic universe run in reverse would contain sentient beings? I admit that this is possible. The reason that I doubt it, however, is that our current understanding of physics every year becomes more patently incomplete. Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics" really is brilliant, and especially intriguing are the little snippets about the new theories that are *causality* based. Causality---as readers of Judea Pearl well know---is a very complicated concept when reduced to the usual formulations that have stood us so well. Stood us so well, that is, until now. A causality based physics, for one thing, could conceivably demand increasing entropy, which totally shoots down notions of our familiar time-reversed lives having any attendant experience. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 23:09:49 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:09:49 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312180126.0244e780@satx.rr.com> References: <24821667.309541173738678516.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <45F5D5F5.2080608@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312180126.0244e780@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 06:36 PM 3/12/2007 -0400, Ben wrote: > > >I think there is a watch somewhere that is powered by energy generated > >by people swinging their arms back and forth... > > Ah, a brain chip powered by *nodding*! > > > :) Try searching for: human implantable thermoelectric devices I think that's what you are looking for. BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 12 23:17:49 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:17:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mark Plus on Keith Henson References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312171703.022eec90@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <041d01c764fc$e89edcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> I don't agree with Mark's rather pessimistic assessment of Keith's judgment. It's hardly his fault if too few other people had the right ideas about space colonization, or if certain weirdos like Timothy Leary succumbed to the deathoid persuasions of people closer to him than Keith was. Or is it Mark's point that one shouldn't put effort into risky projects, because one may find eventually that one hasn't often succeeded? History is so replete with so-called failures that only eventually really struck it big, that it would be pointless for me to waste the time coming up with examples already familiar to everone. Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" To: "'ExI chat list'" Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:19 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] Mark Plus on Keith Henson >A rather hostile blog entry by a sometime-transhumanist having second thoughts: > > http://transsurvivalist.blogspot.com/2007/02/keith-hensons-role-in-failed-futures.html > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Mar 12 23:24:13 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:24:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses Message-ID: <13600409.315971173741849326.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >>I think there is a watch somewhere that is powered by energy generated >>by people swinging their arms back and forth... > >Ah, a brain chip powered by *nodding*! > > Geez, I turn my back for a moment and comedy breaks out! [BTW, my favorite stupid home-shopping network useless item is the electric gyroscope you plug in and attach your Rolex (or similar perpetual movement) watch to, to keep it 'wound,' especially since there IS a winder on the watch if it runs out... I guess people can't be bothered to set and wind a watch anymore. I once walked into a "Hollywood" closet and saw a row of about six of these, each spining and winding a watch. Just the electric power draw for these was ridiculous. Oh well. Whatever.] I'm serious. I'm sure I read something somewhere about using our own biochemistry to power prostheses... Was I really dreaming this? PJ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 12 23:32:30 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:32:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Spartans, Athenians, and Thebans References: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <041e01c764fe$b908a210$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stuart, our Avantguardian, elaborated on the horrific treatment of the Helots, and other cruel and inhumane practices of the Spartans. And I definitely mean compared to similar, contemporary societies; you'll never find me comparing real societies to imagined ones like all the idiotic idealists do. He's totally correct, of course. It was an Evil Empire, as an article in Mankind magazine described in detail so many years ago. (Or, really, as everyone here surely has read.) Any off-hand references to the Spartans in discussions like these should make note of their cruelties and barbarities. Now, of course, the Athenians were nothing to brag about either, at least by our standards. It was mob rule, and mob rule with a vengance as the poor people of Melos found out. Was there ever a society in which envy ran so strongly? Can you credit it that one Athenian approached another and spoke to him thusly: "By the way, I am voting in favor of you being exiled, for I have heard that you are the most just man in the city." Inconceivable to us. I am most impressed---probably, alas, due to insufficient knowledge ---with the sturdy Thebans. They most closely approached, at least in the 3rd century, my own ideals of egalitarianism and patriotism. And they really kicked the Spartans all over the Peloponese before, mercifully, they went home after freeing the slaves and pillaging the Spartan towns. No one could stand up to a 70,000 man Theban army intent on victory. Too bad Epiminondas and his army weren't around when Philip came by a little later on. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 23:30:27 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:30:27 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/13/07, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On 3/12/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > It's not really that different now, is it? People impulsively make all > sorts > > of bad decisions. At least with self-modification you will likely choose > a > > more salubrious goal. How often have you thought, "gee, I wish I were > > suicidal/ a smack addict/ a serial killer"? Even the basest types > generally > > pay lip service to noble supergoals, and if the effort towards achieving > > these supergoals can easily be made more rewarding than doing nothing or > > doing something destructive, why would anyone choose to choose doing > nothing > > or doing something destructive? There are no guarantees where free > agents > > are concerned, but I feel that in general a world where everyone has > chosen > > what sort of person they are will be a more moral and more productive > world > > than the present one. > > You are an optimist. I doubt anybody chooses deliberately to be at > the bottom, they end up there by circumstances that are either beyond > their ability to control (or are perceived to be beyond their control) That's right: the great majority of people have "good" aspirations, and therefore will modify their minds, if they are able to, in order to realise these aspirations. If radical self-modification is literally as easy as turning a knob, > don't you think marketers will have perfected the tactics for > influencing which direction it gets turned? "You think Brand X is > good, just wait until you experience ecstatic bliss for Brand Y* > [bliss not guaranteed until you relinquish control of your > BlissControl(tm) to the parent company of Brand Y] > > As if meme's were not already potentially dangerous enough mind > viruses, enable actual manipulation of a population's motivational > goal systems. We are going to need to learn more effective > anti-mind-virus and mind-firewalls techniques to manage this potential > problem. Mind modification would completely overturn the current economic system. Why would you choose brand X over brand Y if you could obtain as much reward from one as the other, or from neither? What hold would advertisers or, for that matter, torturers have over you if you could neutralise their efforts as easily as yawning? And why would anyone be an advertiser or a torturer if they could get the same reward doing something fundamentally worthwhile, or doing nothing? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Mon Mar 12 23:34:42 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:34:42 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply forsilicon-based neural prostheses Message-ID: <24919367.317051173742482639.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Bill K wrote: >Try searching for: >human implantable thermoelectric devices > >I think that's what you are looking for. Yes! Thank you! That's the second time you've 'saved' me today. Again, many thanks! PJ From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Mar 12 23:49:05 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:49:05 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Mind modification would completely overturn the current economic system. > Why > would you choose brand X over brand Y if you could obtain as much reward > from one as the other, or from neither? They would advertise second order desires. "You *should want* to want this!" Besides, how easy is it to set one's desires? Even if it is technically as simple as in Greg Egan's _Reasons to be Cheerful_ it is obvious to anybody with half a brain that there are risks involved, some of which are very subtle. Most likely desires are very complex systems few will have the skills to adjust well. Hence there is a market for services related to desire management. It will range from desire consultants and designers over desire monitors to the psycops and mind auditors who occasionally check that you are not stuck in a bad mental state, insanity and addiction. Compare to the role of the House AIs in Wright's golden transcendence books. Clearly there is a huge market in a desire economy! > And why would anyone be an advertiser or a torturer > if > they could get the same reward doing something fundamentally worthwhile, > or > doing nothing? Isn't getting people to do something you want a wonderful challenge, especially if they can control their own desires? It would be a grand challenge, and some people would regard that as worthwhile. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 23:53:33 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:53:33 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <013801c764b8$dc8ee1e0$a8044e0c@MyComputer> References: <5df798750703100139k23961764pa1404138bbf3673@mail.gmail.com> <002301c763fb$b0f07c00$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <013801c764b8$dc8ee1e0$a8044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: On 3/13/07, John K Clark wrote: > So just turn a knob, now you have changed your mind, and I do mean CHANGED > YOUR MIND. Now you think being a drug addict is the noblest most > fulfilling > most enjoyable profession that is conceivable. So you think my idea is > stupid, no problem, just turn another knob, now you think my idea is > absolutely brilliant. I could do that, but why would I? Even if I wanted to enjoy using drugs I would arrange it so that I would get the pleasure without the addiction. Even if I decided to become an addict I could always change my mind, much more easily than a present day addict can. I suppose I could make it so I would never want to stop being an addict, but the ease of reversal outweighs this risk. > I think people would rather choose to be happy doing something they feel > > is worthwhile than something useless. > > That is certainly the case today, but my point is that may not always be > true. Doing something worthwhile is more difficult and thus rarer than the > trivial, it follows that to maximize pleasure you should get it from the > trivial not the profound. But doing something difficult can be made just as pleasurable - just as easy, if you like - as sitting around and getting the pleasure for nothing. Suppose I can get x amount of pleasure doing nothing for a day or x amount of pleasure painting the house for a day. I don't mean by this that I paint the house, then get the pleasure: I mean the pleasure comes with the painting, sufficient to counteract tiredness and sore muscles. What advantage would there then be to doing nothing? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Mar 12 23:59:29 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:59:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply forsilicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <24919367.317051173742482639.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <24919367.317051173742482639.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: Actually thermoelectric devices would tend to be problematic unless you have a nice external cold sink (e.g. the arctic air) for them. If the external air is warmer than body temp its a no-go (or unless you are running your Si @ 105 deg F and sinking into the body @ 98 deg F. ) Much warmer than 105-110 deg F and you start to cook the surrounding cells. They are also notoriously inefficient. Much better, as was suggested to me indirectly from E.D. @ Extro III, is to run them off of glucose based fuel cells. I think this is also covered in NM Vol I. There is of course the Gd-148 power source (but that only flies if you have real nanotech unless you want to try and do it with MEMS scale technology (probably possible but I doubt anyone has tried it yet). The Gd-148 heat engine is discussed in NM Vol. I as well. It largely depends on whether you anticipate driving it from the body or some self-contained or "plug-in" power source. Assume the brain is a 10W machine. So adding another 10-30W Si "drain" on the glucose energy the body can supply probably isn't going to stretch things too much. But if you want to add 100-1000W then you have some real problems. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 13 00:08:54 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:08:54 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire References: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <044b01c76504$5a227270$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> The Avantguardian also wrote > Also Spartan women were somewhat fascinating as well. > Their whole tradition of sending their husbands off to > battle by giving them their shields and saying "with > this or on this" is rather powerful as they were in > effect saying "come back victorious, dead, or not at > all." What was really going on is not what you think. It wasn't "come back victorious, dead, or not at all". The Spartans realized that sometimes even the bravest and best troops lose battles. The deal with "the shields" was this: the Greeks had reached a state of advancement beyond that of the mere tribe or horde, in which a warrior is praised for the number of enemy he dispatches or for his ferocity in battle. Spartans and Athenians alike knew what modern nations know: the victorious side is the side whose nerve doesn't fail, whose men never run. "Come back with your shield or on it" was a reference to the fact that soldiers in phalanx who run invariably throw away their bulky shields in their desperation to get away. What this phrase really meant was, "Don't abandon your place in line; your teammates are depending on you; be brave, no matter how horribly intimidating and frightening is the other army, be they huge ferocious Celts or nearly as tall and heavy Thebans charging at the run with a forest of spears heading right at your face." Worse, loss of your place in line makes the very soldier to your left exceedingly vulnerable; one or two people run, and the whole phalanx may panic (under these conditions that we genteel 21st century persons can scarcely imagine). Stand firm, never back down, and fight on till it's over, over there. Too bad for the West that our women don't have the fortitude of the Spartan women. Nor our men, for that matter! Lee From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 13 00:11:11 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:11:11 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <45F5D5F5.2080608@goertzel.org> References: <24821667.309541173738678516.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <45F5D5F5.2080608@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <60434.86.153.216.201.1173744671.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> > I'm looking for information regarding (ideally) constant, low-heat > energy for my fictional brain chip. Most current implants either breach the skin or preferably use induction for power. They have a coil under the skin and a device is worn in a suitable pocket that powers them. Matsushita has developed a fuel cell that runs on blood glucose, http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw111596760144B215 producing 0.2 mW. Fuyuki Sato, Makoto Togo, Mohammed Kamrul Islam, Tomokazu Matsue, Junichi Kosuge, Noboru Fukasaku, Satoshi Kurosawa, Matsuhiko Nishizawa "Enzyme-Based Glucose Fuel Cell Using Vitamin K3-Immobilized Polymer as an Electron Mediator" Electrochem. Commun. 7, 643-647 (2005). http://www.biomems.mech.tohoku.ac.jp/pub_e.html Existing interfaces make use a bit more power, e.g. 66 mW http://www.ee.ucla.edu/faculty/papers/jjudy_trans-biomed-engr_july06.pdf so we need to shrink them a bit - but making a chip energy efficient enough to be powered by blood (or a better fuel cell) seems eminently doable. The big problem is communications: how much energy are you willing to spend on the signals? -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 13 00:40:36 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:40:36 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply forsilicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: References: <24919367.317051173742482639.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <60559.86.153.216.201.1173746436.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: > It largely depends on whether you anticipate driving it from the body or > some self-contained or "plug-in" power source. Assume the brain is a 10W > machine. So adding another 10-30W Si "drain" on the glucose energy the > body > can supply probably isn't going to stretch things too much. But if you > want > to add 100-1000W then you have some real problems. Yes. Normal human wattage is on the order of 100 Watts, and the brain seems to be around 20 Watt. If energy is extracted from blood sugar there will be a bit of competition with the brain; we don't want to cause glucose dips since they negatively affect thinking and mood. An even consumption of a few watts would likely not be much of a problem for the regulatory systems, since the brain requirements can go up and down quite quickly and we can fairly easily replenish ourselves in a modern food rich environment. The main limit of a multiwatt device is going to be heat dissipation. This paper http://www.media.mit.edu/physics/publications/papers/99.01.MONET.pdf shows how to dissipate 30 Watts of heat from a forearm computer, but it takes up plenty of area. Brain implants will have to be in direct contact with venous blood to dissipate heat, and they must not become too hot or they will cause tissue damage. Hmm, maybe install a Zalman heat sink crest linked to my sagittal sinus? But the flow speed doesn't seem to be that great. Based on this http://www.springerlink.com/content/m0548374p4487453/ the speed is about 15.2 cm/s, and if we assume a diameter of 37 mm^2 (based on ref 1 in http://www.aans.org/education/journal/neurosurgical/jun02/12-6-cp1.pdf ) we get a volume of 5.55 cm^3/s. Putting in the heat capacity of water, that gives a heat removal capacity of 23.31 W if we accept a one degree heating (which is probably *far* too much!) In fact, that number is suspiciously close to the brain's dissipation; I wouldn't be surprised if there was a heat limitation aspect here on our biology. My own intuition would be to put as much processing and infrastructure outside the body, only keeping the communications link and some necessary processing inside. Distributing it outside the rather closed environment of the skull is probably a good idea too. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 13 00:47:39 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:47:39 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] A bit of convergence Message-ID: <60575.86.153.216.201.1173746859.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Nick and I have another paper out: Converging Cognitive Enhancements, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1093: 201?227 (2006). http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/converging.pdf It is part of a NY annals volume titled Progress in Convergence: Technologies for Human Wellbeing edited by William Sims Bainbridge and Mihail C. Roco. http://www.nyas.org/annals/detail.asp?annalID=875 I doubt the paper will be very surprising to any of you, but it is always nice to beat on one's own drum. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 13 02:43:38 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:43:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > And *why* is there utility? I.e., why do people fight wars at all? Isn't it EXTREMELY OBVIOUS why human groups fight wars and have conflicts??? It was obvious even before E.P. If you want to explain something, explain why 1. people join anti-war marches designed to *weaken* their own side's prospects while an actual war is going on! 2. why people cannot control their own envy towards those better off than they are, even though they've grown up seeing envy in all its ugly manifestations all their lives! 3. why humans are the peaceful primate, i.e., why per thousand hours of ethnological observation, humans are vastly, vastly more peaceful than any other primate. 4. why there has been a uniform decrease of warfare per living human being during the course of history Those really demand explanation. And that's just four mysteries I have for you. There are plenty more mysteries. But why war or inter-group conflict exists, or why people compete, certainly are not among them. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 13 02:46:59 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:46:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] PJ's quotes and email clients References: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora><7.0.1.0.2.20070312164359.022fe5d8@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070312170010.022cf0a0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <045f01c7651a$2827f1d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes >> Actually, what I see is worse than that, because although the quoted >> lines do wrap, they run all the way across the screen first, so the >> screen is wall-to-wall wordage. >> >> Must be a Eudora weakness. Curses. > > If it's any comfort, pj's article quoting formatting is lost in the > exi-chat archives also. > > See: > > > So there is some funny stuff going on when she does 'copy and paste' > to insert an article into her email. Gmail can handle it OK. But > obviously the mail archive software and Eudora can't. Carumba! This has risen to a REAL PROBLEM. What is really going on??? What is it about some quotations that the archive software and Eudora can't handle? If we cannot solve it, should one insert extra lines in quoted material? We have to do something. Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 13 03:04:26 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:04:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mark Plus on Keith Henson In-Reply-To: <041d01c764fc$e89edcd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312171703.022eec90@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312211700.03d51930@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:17 PM 3/12/2007 -0700, you wrote: >I don't agree with Mark's rather pessimistic assessment of Keith's judgment. >It's hardly his fault if too few other people had the right ideas about space >colonization, At the time the idea of space colonies, at least of the sort where people can just move there on their own was economically wrong. As Freeman Dyson pointed out, the cost of transport into space is about 10,000 times too high. >or if certain weirdos like Timothy That was Dr. Timothy Leary, one time research scientist at Harvard and one of the sharpest people I ever met. Get a copy his autobiography, _Flashbacks_. (Arel typed the manuscript). An episode from his life that may or may not be in the record is that when he was sent to prison after being framed for marijuana, the psychological profiling test Dr. Leary was given was one he had created and standardized. Of course he knew how to answer the questions in order to be put in a low security place from which he could escape. You might keep in mind that the full PR resources of the federal government were used in an attempt to ruin his reputation when it was thought the 60s and antiwar movement had leaders and therefor all the unrest would end if those leaders were destroyed. >Leary succumbed to the >deathoid persuasions of people closer to him than Keith was. Leary would have been frozen if certain people . . . talk to me in person. >Or is it Mark's point that one shouldn't put effort into risky projects, >because >one may find eventually that one hasn't often succeeded? Probably best if I don't say anything. Give me a call if you want. 928-445-4412 Keith snip From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 13 03:50:16 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:50:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <13600409.315971173741849326.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312221634.02cc6148@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:24 PM 3/12/2007 -0400, you wrote: > >>I think there is a watch somewhere that is powered by energy generated > >>by people swinging their arms back and forth... > > > >Ah, a brain chip powered by *nodding*! > > > > > >Geez, I turn my back for a moment and comedy breaks out! > >[BTW, my favorite stupid home-shopping network useless item is the >electric gyroscope you plug in and attach your Rolex (or similar perpetual >movement) watch to, to keep it 'wound,' especially since there IS a winder >on the watch if it runs out... I guess people can't be bothered to set and >wind a watch anymore. I once walked into a "Hollywood" closet and saw a >row of about six of these, each spining and winding a watch. Just the >electric power draw for these was ridiculous. Oh well. Whatever.] I doubt they were using more than 15 watts each. >I'm serious. I'm sure I read something somewhere about using our own >biochemistry to power prostheses... Was I really dreaming this? When you get serious, that's a sign you need to put numbers on it. Or let Google do it for you. 2 500 (kilocalories per day) = 121.064815 watts A little searching gives you the power consumption of a brain http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing.shtml About 20 watts. About two years ago I calculated the area of silicon and power it would take to duplicate the computation a human brain uses. It worked out to be something on the order of 10,000 square meters and the power draw was in the 10 Gw range. You should rerun this calculation, but if I got it right the improvement you would need power wise to run a brain in silicon from the amount available from the human bloodstream is on the order of 10 exp 9. That's a billion times. Keith Henson From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 03:45:39 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:15:39 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists say nerves use sound, not electricity Message-ID: <710b78fc0703122045j49561afcp9b2f044080e41001@mail.gmail.com> Scientists say nerves use sound, not electricity http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03/09/science-nervessound-20070309.html#skip300x250 ??? Emlyn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 13 03:58:06 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:58:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: <044b01c76504$5a227270$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312225531.03ece3e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:08 PM 3/12/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: snip >Stand firm, never back down, and fight on till it's over, >over there. Too bad for the West that our women don't >have the fortitude of the Spartan women. > >Nor our men, for that matter! You might have noticed that these virtues get you flamed. But charging at the enemy went out with the machine gun. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Mar 12 23:40:10 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:40:10 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <13600409.315971173741849326.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <13600409.315971173741849326.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: On 3/12/07, pjmanney wrote: > I'm serious. I'm sure I read something somewhere about using our own biochemistry to power prostheses... Was I really dreaming this? If you search "glucose power" you'll find some ideas. Another one is Gd-148. - Jef From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 13 04:16:44 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:16:44 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312230236.03daaeb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:43 PM 3/12/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Keith writes > > > And *why* is there utility? I.e., why do people fight wars at all? > >Isn't it EXTREMELY OBVIOUS why human groups fight wars >and have conflicts??? > >It was obvious even before E.P. Maybe to you, but I certainly didn't understand it. Re the rest of this, EP tries to explain things in terms of psychological traits selected in the stone age mapping into modern day behavior. Your list of questions relates to things that just didn't exist in the stone age. For example, warring groups were bands or tribes that seldom exceeded 100 people, not nations with hundreds of millions. >If you want to explain something, explain why > >1. people join anti-war marches designed to *weaken* > their own side's prospects while an actual war is > going on! There is a bell curve of how much people get infected with memes leading to war. In a large population you are likely to have a group that organized itself to fight against those making war. You would expect such movements to be more common in places were the country was not attacked and not really at risk. >2. why people cannot control their own envy towards > those better off than they are, even though they've > grown up seeing envy in all its ugly manifestations > all their lives! You need a concret example here. >3. why humans are the peaceful primate, i.e., why per > thousand hours of ethnological observation, humans > are vastly, vastly more peaceful than any other primate. Violent behavior is dangerous. You should expect it to be displayed only where the consequences of not being violent lead to a worse outcome. >4. why there has been a uniform decrease of warfare per > living human being during the course of history In my EP, memes and war paper I address this. Warfare is the ultimate consequence of widespread perception of a bleak future. I also would ask you to support your statement with a study. My opinion is that birth control leads to little excess population that must be burned off. Keith >Those really demand explanation. > >And that's just four mysteries I have for you. There are >plenty more mysteries. But why war or inter-group conflict >exists, or why people compete, certainly are not among them. > >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 Tue Mar 13 04:52:40 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:52:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312230236.03daaeb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <049101c7652b$c05ba8a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes >>It was obvious even before E.P. > > Maybe to you, but I certainly didn't understand it. "Us versus them" has always, obviously, been a part of human nature. Even in the animal kingdom, from ants to bull mooses, violence is just, well, natural. Chimpanzee and other primate groups are never at peace either. Maybe your emphasis here is on the word "understand". I thank you for two rather good explanations of two of my questions, but I won't ask you to back up them up with studies, however. >>2. why people cannot control their own envy towards >> those better off than they are, even though they've >> grown up seeing envy in all its ugly manifestations >> all their lives! > > You need a concrete example here. I gave an example of two Athenians, one who voted to exile the other *simply* because he was envious of the other's high reputation. But that's an aberration to us, of course. So take Bill Gates: and don't tell me that all the antipathy towards him has nothing to do with his being so rich. Or do you think that envy is a rare phenomenon? >>4. why there has been a uniform decrease of warfare per >> living human being during the course of history > > In my EP, memes and war paper I address this. Warfare is the ultimate > consequence of widespread perception of a bleak future. I also would ask > you to support your statement with a study. No study is needed. I'm amazed that you don't acknowledge the correctness of the statement. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Wars are *less* frequent per person per year than ever before, and this has been monotonic for a long time. I'm currently reading about the founding of Russia, and before that I was reading Colonial history, and before that 3rd century Rome. Find me a fifty year period in world history more peaceful per living person than the last fifty years. You *obviously* cannot. Lee From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 04:56:55 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists say nerves use sound, not electricity In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0703122045j49561afcp9b2f044080e41001@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <270836.25756.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> --- Emlyn wrote: > Scientists say nerves use sound, not electricity > http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03/09/science-nervessound-20070309.html#skip300x250 > > ??? I just read the primary article here: http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/rapidpdf/biophysj.106.099754v1 It is an intriguing hypothesis that explains a hitherto unexplainable empirical law called the Meyer-Overton rule which shows an inverse mathematical relationship between the solubility of all known general and local anaesthetics in lipids and their potency. Anaesthethics dissolved in the neural membranes lower the freezing point of the membrane and reduce it's ability to conduct solitons of sound leading to unconsciousness. Apparently mind really is the image of OM, the universal sound of creation. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 06:28:27 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <049101c7652b$c05ba8a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <116588.86352.qm@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> --- Lee Corbin wrote: > >>2. why people cannot control their own envy > towards > >> those better off than they are, even though > they've > >> grown up seeing envy in all its ugly > manifestations > >> all their lives! > > > > You need a concrete example here. > > I gave an example of two Athenians, one who voted to > exile > the other *simply* because he was envious of the > other's > high reputation. > > But that's an aberration to us, of course. So take > Bill Gates: > and don't tell me that all the antipathy towards him > has > nothing to do with his being so rich. Or do you > think > that envy is a rare phenomenon? No it is almost universal amongst intelligent organisms so I would bet that it is hard-wired into the brain somehow. It's obviously a survival mechanism. Take some popcorn to the park and find a lone pigeon. Give it one kernal and see how many pigeons flock to the vicinity and try to take it from your chosen bird. You can literally feel the greed and envy. We compete with each other for limited resources, ergo envy and greed are rational strategies. For other examples of animal envy think about peer training of animals. Almost any trainable animal will learn far faster if it has to compete for rewards with an already trained peer animal. Dogs, parrots, or dolphins, it works on all of them. Envy at work. Another interesting example is this: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/06/ferocity_of_chimpanzee_attack_stuns_medics_leaves_questions/ It's about a band of chimps literally breaking out of a cage at a wild life preserve in order to maim and practically kill, not their captors, but a couple that was throwing a birthday party for a chimp they once owned. The sheriff commented that the chimps' motive was not escape but was envy of the one chimp that was being thrown a party by the couple. Envy is a completely rational survival strategy that unfortunately causes suffering to the envious and, if the envious is vengeful, to envied as well. > > >>4. why there has been a uniform decrease of > warfare per > >> living human being during the course of > history > > > > In my EP, memes and war paper I address this. > Warfare is the ultimate > > consequence of widespread perception of a bleak > future. I also would ask > > you to support your statement with a study. > > No study is needed. I'm amazed that you don't > acknowledge the > correctness of the statement. Perhaps I wasn't > clear. Wars are > *less* frequent per person per year than ever > before, and this > has been monotonic for a long time. I'm currently > reading about > the founding of Russia, and before that I was > reading Colonial > history, and before that 3rd century Rome. Find me > a fifty year > period in world history more peaceful per living > person than the > last fifty years. You *obviously* cannot. Perhaps we are learning. Like Keith said, we now live in nations of millions rather than tribes of 150, where competition for basic necessities amounts to getting into the shortest line at the grocery store. Therefore the incentive per-capita for war is far less than the risk of getting killed. Not to mention these days, by international treaty, victorious soldiers are not allowed to rape and pillage the conquered. While somebody obviously profits, it's generally no longer the ones doing the fighting. In any case you can see that even the sodiers who survive modern war do not receive any differential reproductive advantage compared to the draft dodgers except perhaps bragging rights. Thus wars are wiping out the carriers of the most hawkish programming (both genetic and memetic) while preserving the benevolent yet retaliatory ones (tit for tat/burgeoise doves) and of course the draft dodging pure doves and chicken-hawks that also benefit. A few more world wars and soldiers may be mostly warrior-poets, robots, or both. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 13 07:56:49 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:56:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:53:02PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Eugen points out that the visible universe doesn't have enough compute > power for a GLUT (giant look-up table capable of passing an extremely > thorough Turing Test to the point that no difference between its behavior > and that of a human is detectable). Actually, this was one argument. Another was that lookup tables mapping sensorics to motorics are deterministic, if without inner state. If you add internal state, and evolutions on such, you've got a conventional computer. This is no longer a lookup table, giant, or otherwise. > Firstly, this is an argument about principle. It shouldn't depend either on > timescale nor on contingent astronomy facts. According to Tegmark, > anyway, the universe is infinite; again, even if we can never reach certain I will listen to Tegmark once he's got a falsifyable theory. As such, this is fairy tale physics. > parts of it receding from us, so what? We don't want to depend on > arguments that work only in our universe, but not in other MWI branches > totally identical to ours except for astronomical facts. How do you know there are such branches? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 13 08:01:02 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:01:02 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: References: <24821667.309541173738678516.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <45F5D5F5.2080608@goertzel.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312180126.0244e780@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20070313080102.GL31912@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:09:49PM +0000, BillK wrote: > Try searching for: > human implantable thermoelectric devices Not enough thermal gradient in a deep implant. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 08:37:55 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:37:55 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 3/13/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: Besides, how easy is it to set one's desires? Even if it is technically as > simple as in Greg Egan's _Reasons to be Cheerful_ it is obvious to anybody > with half a brain that there are risks involved, some of which are very > subtle. Most likely desires are very complex systems few will have the > skills to adjust well. Hence there is a market for services related to > desire management. It will range from desire consultants and designers > over desire monitors to the psycops and mind auditors who occasionally > check that you are not stuck in a bad mental state, insanity and > addiction. Compare to the role of the House AIs in Wright's golden > transcendence books. Clearly there is a huge market in a desire economy! No doubt, someone will try to regulate self-modification, but it is interesting to speculate as to what would happen if it were allowed to develop unfettered. We would have to consider not only second order desires but also third and higher order desires. For example, if someone felt uncertain as to what they should desire, instead of seeing a desire consultant they might simply nullify the uncomfortable aspect of the uncertainty, rendering themselves confident and happy with any decision they might make. I think the equilibrium point in this process will ultimately be a computer heaven in which the inhabitants experience maximum pleasure for no effort, as John K Clark has suggested. However, it may be a long process before someone gets to heaven, and there will always be at least the eccentrics who deliberately limit their self-modification (perhaps by modifying themselves so that they are never again tempted to modify themselves). Moreover, even if everyone is in the heaven computer, there will be either servitors who will maintain it, and will have blocks in place so they are not diverted from their goal. These servitors might continue to explore the universe, or give rise to new transhumans who will pursue this or other goals prior to self-modifying their way into their final resting place. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 13 09:09:19 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:09:19 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Scientists say nerves use sound, not electricity In-Reply-To: <270836.25756.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <270836.25756.qm@web60514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <50716.86.153.216.201.1173776959.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> > --- Emlyn wrote: > >> Scientists say nerves use sound, not electricity >> > http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03/09/science-nervessound-20070309.html#skip300x250 >> >> ??? LOL! Back to Descartes' pneumatic nervous system! Talk about throwing away the baby with the bathwater! The Avantguardian wrote: > I just read the primary article here: > > http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/rapidpdf/biophysj.106.099754v1 No, that is not it. That is a not too unreasonable take on anasthetic action, not action potentials. Here is their theory: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0610/0610117.pdf The paper is not bad, it is just that it sounds like physicists who have not got much of a clue about neuroscience. They have what looks like a genuine physical problem, the lack of dissipation during the action potential, and immediately propose a solution, a density pulse causing the action potential as a piezoelectric effect. The problem is that neuroscientists know *a lot* about action potentials, including how to block or modify them by blocking the ion channels. The soliton model would predict that the ion channels don't matter! It also would seem to crash for saltatory signals along myleinated axons (unless they claim the myelin increases the speed of sound). In fact, the only experimental support they cite is measurements of force on a piston as an action potential passes, and membrane fluoroscence changes. But to me the close similarity between the force curve and the potential curve suggests that the piston might simply have become charged, not that the membrane is bulging. And the fluoroscence is no evidence that the membrane is actually moving, just that there is local conformational change. I think consciousness research (which this really is, given the strong emphasis on anesthesia) is detrimental for the critical faculties of researchers. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 13 09:12:07 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:12:07 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <007101c76404$9b4b5240$5a074e0c@MyComputer> <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:37:55PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > No doubt, someone will try to regulate self-modification, but it is > interesting to speculate as to what would happen if it were allowed to Frontiers are always unregulated. There will be plenty of experimentation. > develop unfettered. We would have to consider not only second order > desires but also third and higher order desires. For example, if > someone felt uncertain as to what they should desire, instead of > seeing a desire consultant they might simply nullify the uncomfortable > aspect of the uncertainty, rendering themselves confident and happy > with any decision they might make. I think the equilibrium point in Nobody can bliss out forever ignoring the physical layer. > this process will ultimately be a computer heaven in which the > inhabitants experience maximum pleasure for no effort, as John K Clark > has suggested. However, it may be a long process before someone gets > to heaven, and there will always be at least the eccentrics who > deliberately limit their self-modification (perhaps by modifying > themselves so that they are never again tempted to modify themselves). > Moreover, even if everyone is in the heaven computer, there will be > either servitors who will maintain it, and will have blocks in place If your computer is your body, why would you hire external craft (cosmetologists?) to take care of it? > so they are not diverted from their goal. These servitors might > continue to explore the universe, or give rise to new transhumans who "servitors might continue to explore the universe", well, I guess that means that the meek won't inherit the Earth, but certainly the stars. Where can I sign up as such a servitor? > will pursue this or other goals prior to self-modifying their way into > their final resting place. You people have really strange future models. Darwinian systems never converge to a static state. At best you'd get a Red Queen equilibrium. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From alito at organicrobot.com Tue Mar 13 10:35:01 2007 From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:35:01 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] PJ's quotes and email clients In-Reply-To: <045f01c7651a$2827f1d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312164359.022fe5d8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312170010.022cf0a0@satx.rr.com> <045f01c7651a$2827f1d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <1173782101.7037.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:46 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > BillK writes > > >> Actually, what I see is worse than that, because although the quoted > >> lines do wrap, they run all the way across the screen first, so the > >> screen is wall-to-wall wordage. > >> > >> Must be a Eudora weakness. Curses. > > > > If it's any comfort, pj's article quoting formatting is lost in the > > exi-chat archives also. > > > > See: > > > > > > So there is some funny stuff going on when she does 'copy and paste' > > to insert an article into her email. Gmail can handle it OK. But > > obviously the mail archive software and Eudora can't. > > Carumba! This has risen to a REAL PROBLEM. What is really going > on??? What is it about some quotations that the archive software and > Eudora can't handle? > My sarcasm detector is currently broken, so I'll reply to that as if it was a sincere question. The message that PJ sent was base-64 encoded, with no newlines inside her paragraphs, so probably breaking some standard by outputting 200 character lines. Some client programs seem not to autowrap. > If we cannot solve it, should one insert extra lines in quoted material? > We have to do something. > I recommend we panic. From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 10:48:54 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:48:54 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <041801c764fb$80033050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200703012238.l21McIhv018465@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <02d201c7631d$98f89da0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <036f01c76399$b6fcb7b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <041801c764fb$80033050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/13/07, Lee Corbin wrote: Stathis writes > > > What if your program were broken up into minutes and the minutes run in > reverse > > order? > > Then within each minute, future states would causally depend on past > states, and > yes, I'd be conscious. But that's because valid computations would be > being > performed within each of those minutes. What about between the minutes? Consider a teleportation thought experiment, where I am made to disintegrate mid-thought at A and reappear mid-thought at B. At B, action potentials are travelling along my neurons just as if I had stayed at A, even though the usual causal connection has been disrupted. I really find it difficult to imagine how it is possible that you not experience continuity of consciousness between A and B, given that the physical processes are the same, regardless of the causal connection between them. Even simpler, there is no need to introduce "continuity of consciousness" as a separate entity: there is just the present moment of consciousness, which contains information relating to past moments, but no information as to whether those past moments actually occurred, or if they did where or when they occurred. This is equivalent to saying that you would not know it if you were created complete with false memories a nanosecond ago. But if the states are merely *stored* and then recalled (either in forward > or > reverse order), no computations are taking place! Imagine a 3D movie, a > version of "Casablanca" that manipulated each of the atoms in Humphrey > Bogart's body around for him. Unless the instants were causally > connected, > Bogart wouldn't be there, either as character or as actor. No > computation, > no Cafe Americain. Why not? Any physical process can be broken up into a series of snapshots, and computation is just another physical process. But isn't this really not germane to your main argument? Aren't you really > claiming that the laws of physics are time-reversible, and so a completely > deterministic universe run in reverse would contain sentient beings? I > admit > that this is possible. > > The reason that I doubt it, however, is that our current understanding of > physics every year becomes more patently incomplete. Smolin's book > "The Trouble With Physics" really is brilliant, and especially intriguing > are > the little snippets about the new theories that are *causality* based. > > Causality---as readers of Judea Pearl well know---is a very complicated > concept when reduced to the usual formulations that have stood us so well. > Stood us so well, that is, until now. A causality based physics, for one > thing, > could conceivably demand increasing entropy, which totally shoots down > notions of our familiar time-reversed lives having any attendant > experience. Physics, causality, increasing entropy are needed to make computers or brains so that they can have the series of physical states on which the mental states supervene. In a simulation, physics doesn't apply: you can run the clock as fast as you want, stop and start the program or run it backwards. If you do any of these things, it will not be apparent from inside the program because it isn't information made available to the program. It's not as if the value of pi will change if it is calculated on a fast or slow computer, or if the calculation is distributed in time and space over several different machines; and since the calculation survives fragmentation, you would have to attribute some special non-computational property to the mind supervening on the calculation if you think that it would be affected. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 11:27:15 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:27:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] PJ's quotes and email clients In-Reply-To: <1173782101.7037.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312164359.022fe5d8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312170010.022cf0a0@satx.rr.com> <045f01c7651a$2827f1d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1173782101.7037.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: > I recommend we panic. All of us or just some of us? I can see what the problem is with the archives. It just sticks all of the messages between
 and 
tags indicating "PRE"-formatted text. Unfortunately most browsers assume that means that you have already wrapped the lines which isn't the case for many messages which now have very long lines (which *is* acceptable for HTML, since the browser will wrap them for the window or sub-window in which the text is being viewed). Now, apparently there is a partially supported "WIDTH=##" option with
that would presumably tell the browser to wrap any really long lines to some
shorter width but what I've read so far indicates support varies from
browser to browser.

People have to realize that this is a mess.  In gmail, I change the window
width and I change the length of the lines which are readable in the message
window.  Paragraphs with forced linefeeds included (
in HTML) will not scale with window width. (This is particularly true because one can change the font size with ctrl-+ and ctrl-- which results in a change in the "effective" line length). So paragraphs without explicit line breaks *is* the right approach. The problem is when some (cough) brain dead tools add explicit line breaks for incoming text and then don't take them back out on outgoing text or add HTML tags which prevent the reformatting of the text. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 11:36:35 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:36:35 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/13/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:37:55PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > No doubt, someone will try to regulate self-modification, but it is > > interesting to speculate as to what would happen if it were allowed > to > > Frontiers are always unregulated. There will be plenty of experimentation. > > > develop unfettered. We would have to consider not only second order > > desires but also third and higher order desires. For example, if > > someone felt uncertain as to what they should desire, instead of > > seeing a desire consultant they might simply nullify the > uncomfortable > > aspect of the uncertainty, rendering themselves confident and happy > > with any decision they might make. I think the equilibrium point in > > Nobody can bliss out forever ignoring the physical layer. No, you'd die: hence, you would need either a separate servitor to look after the hardware or a subprocess of yourself not completely preoccupied with bliss. > this process will ultimately be a computer heaven in which the > > inhabitants experience maximum pleasure for no effort, as John K > Clark > > has suggested. However, it may be a long process before someone gets > > to heaven, and there will always be at least the eccentrics who > > deliberately limit their self-modification (perhaps by modifying > > themselves so that they are never again tempted to modify > themselves). > > Moreover, even if everyone is in the heaven computer, there will be > > either servitors who will maintain it, and will have blocks in place > > If your computer is your body, why would you hire external craft > (cosmetologists?) to take care of it? For the above reason: if you devote all of your processing power to pleasure, you would need an independent subprocess which would not be tempted to join you sitting around doing nothing in heaven. My conception of the situation was of multiple posthumans on a computer network rather than free-ranging entities. > so they are not diverted from their goal. These servitors might > > continue to explore the universe, or give rise to new transhumans who > > "servitors might continue to explore the universe", well, I guess that > means that the meek won't inherit the Earth, but certainly the stars. > Where can I sign up as such a servitor? Then you would be one of the posthumans who decide not to enter the heaven computer. Maybe you would even modify yourself so that you were never tempted. You wouldn't be missing out, because you could have just as much fun doing X as you could sitting around doing nothing. > will pursue this or other goals prior to self-modifying their way into > > their final resting place. > > You people have really strange future models. Darwinian systems never > converge to a static state. At best you'd get a Red Queen equilibrium. I agree, you would never reach a position where everyone was in static bliss, because there would always be, for example, the unconventional and eccentric, as well as newly formed posthumans. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 11:49:32 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:49:32 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] PJ's quotes and email clients In-Reply-To: References: <4842177.273881173725313461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312164359.022fe5d8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070312170010.022cf0a0@satx.rr.com> <045f01c7651a$2827f1d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1173782101.7037.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 3/13/07, Robert Bradbury wrote: > > I can see what the problem is with the archives. It just sticks all of the > messages between
 and 
tags indicating "PRE"-formatted text. > Unfortunately most browsers assume that means that you have already wrapped > the lines which isn't the case for many messages which now have very long > lines (which *is* acceptable for HTML, since the browser will wrap them for > the window or sub-window in which the text is being viewed). > I think the problem lies with pj's webmail system. She is sending as: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 This means that the body is a base64 ASCII encoding of data that was originally in utf-8, and will be in that character set again after decoding. Eudora does not support the utf-8 character set. So the problem would be solved if pj could set her webmail software to use ISO-8859-1 (normal text) instead of utf-8. Unfortunately I am unable to perch on pj's shoulder, so she will probably have to call in tech support to adjust her software. Or she could just get a gmail account. You can upload all your existing mail into gmail if you need to. Best wishes, BillK From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 14:35:07 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:35:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:43:38 -0400, Lee Corbin wrote: > If you want to explain something, explain why > > 1. people join anti-war marches designed to *weaken* > their own side's prospects while an actual war is > going on! Please tell me, Lee, that you're not among those zealots on the ultra-right who believe anti-war protesters are traitors to their own country. This would seem to be your implication when you state that anti-war marches are "designed to weaken their own side's prospects". Those words are close to the definition of the very serious crime of treason. In every case, as far as I can tell, anti-war movements exist when some significant percentage of individuals believe, rightly or wrongly but always sincerely, that a war is unjustified, or illegal, or morally wrong, or too costly in dollars or in the lives of their fellow countrymen and women. Far from being traitors with designs on hurting or weakening their own side, anti-war protesters are patriots with a different point of view. -gts From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 16:11:05 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:11:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:43:38 -0400, Lee Corbin wrote: > If you want to explain something, explain why > 4. why there has been a uniform decrease of warfare per > living human being during the course of history A possible contributing factor is the difference between the growth of the human population and the growth in the number of nation-states capable of waging the kinds of wars about which have any statistics. If the latter lagged the former, and I'd guess it very probably has, then the result would be a decrease in world-wide war-per-capita. -gts From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Tue Mar 13 16:27:59 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:27:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312230236.03daaeb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <049101c7652b$c05ba8a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <45F6D10F.8090102@thomasoliver.net> Lee Corbin wrote: > Wars are >*less* frequent per person per year than ever before, and this >has been monotonic for a long time. I'm currently reading about >the founding of Russia, and before that I was reading Colonial >history, and before that 3rd century Rome. Find me a fifty year >period in world history more peaceful per living person than the >last fifty years. You *obviously* cannot. > >Lee > > So, are you implying that peace and population are positive correlates? I believe you have read a lot more history than I. Can you tell me about the simply most peaceful 50 years span in recorded history (*not* related to population) and perhaps speculate on the reasons? -- Thomas From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 18:28:04 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:28:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <45F6D10F.8090102@thomasoliver.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312230236.03daaeb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <049101c7652b$c05ba8a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <45F6D10F.8090102@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:27:59 -0400, Thomas wrote: > So, are you implying that peace and population are positive correlates? I don't know if that is Lee's implication, but certainly it is mine. However as you probably know correlation does not imply causation. The question I think Lee really wants to us to consider relates closely to the interesting question of whether humanity's propensity to wage war has changed over the course of recorded history. I don't know if humans have become more or less war-like, but it seems to me that a steady decrease in global war-per-capita is not convincing evidence one way or the other. The rate of growth of the human population is a major factor in considerations about changes of global war-per-capita, but it's one that seems to me to have relatively little bearing on the question of humanity's propensity to wage war. Humans are prone to have sex and make babies, no matter their opinions of war. Also the almost certainly slower rate of growth in the number of war-capable nation-states on earth (vs the rate of growth of population) is I think largely a function of physical constraints. Given that population growth rates and nation-state growth rates are two enormously important factors in calculating rates of change in global war-per-capita, it seems to me that the supposed steady decrease global war-per-capita is not attributable, necessarily, to peaceful changes in human nature. -gts From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 19:17:18 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:17:18 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> On 3/13/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > For the above reason: if you devote all of your processing power to > pleasure, you would need an independent subprocess which would not be > tempted to join you sitting around doing nothing in heaven. My conception of > the situation was of multiple posthumans on a computer network rather than > free-ranging entities. ### But let's consider the economic aspects here: There is likely to be a positive correlation between the amount of computing power devoted to the acquisition of computational resources and the amount of computing power an entity gains. Therefore the entities that use a part of their computational resources for bliss will not be able to gain resources as quickly as entities that are not so encumbered. They may also be unable to resist the loss of computational resources, given the likely persistence of scarcity and competition for resources. In other words, they'll first eat your servitor, and if you don't pay your electricity bill, they'll eat you too. Rafal From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 13 20:18:17 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:18:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <45F6D10F.8090102@thomasoliver.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312230236.03daaeb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <049101c7652b$c05ba8a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <45F6D10F.8090102@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070313150738.03f12f88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:28 PM 3/13/2007 -0400, you wrote: >On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:27:59 -0400, Thomas wrote: > > > So, are you implying that peace and population are positive correlates? There is no reason to expect this to have been the case in the stone age. With constant technology to extract resources from the enviroment and war one of the ways to drain off population, a rise in population is going to result in more wars. >I don't know if that is Lee's implication, but certainly it is mine. >However as you probably know correlation does not imply causation. I make the case that the *key* element in preventing wars in the last 50 years is rising income per capita--largely due in westernized countries to birthrates not much different from replacement. >The question I think Lee really wants to us to consider relates closely to >the interesting question of whether humanity's propensity to wage war has >changed over the course of recorded history. I don't know if humans have >become more or less war-like, but it seems to me that a steady decrease in >global war-per-capita is not convincing evidence one way or the other. >The rate of growth of the human population is a major factor in >considerations about changes of global war-per-capita, but it's one that >seems to me to have relatively little bearing on the question of >humanity's propensity to wage war. Humans are prone to have sex and make >babies, no matter their opinions of war. > >Also the almost certainly slower rate of growth in the number of >war-capable nation-states on earth (vs the rate of growth of population) >is I think largely a function of physical constraints. War is one kind of human on human predation. Was what happened in Cambodia a war? How about Rwanda? Your point is well taken re states that can wage high tech war. A low tech state just can't attack a high tech state in a way that would be called war. And the high tech states, even China, have massively slowed their population growth which should reduce their tendency to start wars. >Given that population growth rates and nation-state growth rates are two >enormously important factors in calculating rates of change in global >war-per-capita, it seems to me that the supposed steady decrease global >war-per-capita is not attributable, necessarily, to peaceful changes in >human nature. It is *most* unlikely that human nature, which is to say gene frequencies, would change much in such a tiny period of time as 50 years. Keith Henson From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 13 20:26:29 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:26:29 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### But let's consider the economic aspects here: There is likely to > be a positive correlation between the amount of computing power > devoted to the acquisition of computational resources and the amount > of computing power an entity gains. Therefore the entities that use a > part of their computational resources for bliss will not be able to > gain resources as quickly as entities that are not so encumbered. They > may also be unable to resist the loss of computational resources, > given the likely persistence of scarcity and competition for > resources. Ah, so that is why there are no hedonists around today, especially not among the upper classes! :-) While computing power might be useful for earning money, there are many other ways to get rich - having unique or hard-to-replicate information or skills, being a winner in the attention game, investments etc. Sometimes it might not even be clever to have too much computing power, since no doubt that is unweildy and expensive. There is room for cockroaches and newspaper stands in the eco/econosystem, and they can relocate far more easily than elephants or CNN if conditions change. I would expect something similar for huge minds too. One trend we seem to have had so far is that as the economy becomes bigger and more efficient people get more time and resources for leisure, not less. While we might all complain about working hours and the rat race, clearly the amount of pleasure-time ordinary people have has increased since the turn of last century, the middle ages, antiquity and the neolithic. The hunter-gatherers might have plenty of spare time but they couldn't spend that time in very many pleasurable ways. Their farmer offspring had less free time (that might have been one of the few cases of real diminishment of pleasure), but as society became richer and broader the pleasures increased. I think that a posthuman economy is going to be so wealthy that most individuals are going to be spending enormous amounts of resources on pleasure. Maybe there will be a clade of non-pleasure workaholics around (or more likely, they regard economic activity as pleasurable) that only try to get ahead. But looking at how workaholics today doesn't seem to be anywhere dominant in business or wealth (they certainly do better than us lazy people, but not enormously so - one reason is that at higher levels business requires fairly broad capacities that are hard to achieve just by hard work, like social networking and alliance building), I think the Homo economicus will be just one of the many odd clades around. Still, I could be wrong. It would be interesting to see if one could use Adami-type evolutionary statistical mechanics arguments on the evolution of posthuman motivational clades and how likely it would be that slight differences in economic fitness would produce radically dominant evolutionary clades. Sounds like a great research project for someday when somebody has time. Now I must work - how delightful! Yay! -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Mar 13 21:04:05 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:04:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses Message-ID: <18455612.435341173819845751.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Keith wrote: >When you get serious, that's a sign you need to put numbers on it. Or let >Google do it for you. snip >You should rerun this calculation, but if I got it right the improvement >you would need power wise to run a brain in silicon from the amount >available from the human bloodstream is on the order of 10 exp 9. That's a >billion times. First, I want to thank everyone for jumping in and helping me out. The glucose fuel cell is a great idea and one I completely forgot that I read in Freitas. Much thanks to Anders, Robert and Eugen for that. To Keith: Just to be clear, I'm specifically looking to power a hippocampus prosthesis. Ted Berger at USC has been working on it and in his paper "A Neural Prothesis for Hippocampal Memory Function," he outlines the five essential requirements for an implantable microchip. He covers the first four in depth, but the fifth requirement is power and it's the only requirement he doesn't address at all, leaving me in the lurch, so to speak. I know some of you might read my book someday and the last thing I need is emails saying, "Hey, dug the book, but you completely glossed over the energy issues! Wassup?!" ;-) As noted before, the issue is heat generation near the sensitive brain tissues. As for putting the numbers to it, you're right. Unfortunately, I'm not the gal. My dyslexia is really bad with numbers and mathematical formulas [and musical notation :-( ], so I leave that to the experts. So I really appreciate your help. Take care all, PJ From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 13 20:40:04 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:40:04 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070313150738.03f12f88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <45F6D10F.8090102@thomasoliver.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312230236.03daaeb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <049101c7652b$c05ba8a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <5.1.0.14.0.20070313150738.03f12f88@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:18:17 -0400, Keith Henson wrote: >> Given that population growth rates and nation-state growth rates are two >> enormously important factors in calculating rates of change in global >> war-per-capita, it seems to me that the supposed steady decrease in >> global >> war-per-capita is not attributable, necessarily, to peaceful changes in >> human nature. > > It is *most* unlikely that human nature, which is to say gene > frequencies, would change much in such a tiny period of time as 50 years. I agree of course, but I think the question was about possible changes in the human propensity for war over all of known human history. That's quite a bit longer than 50 years. :) Some genetic changes do seem to have occurred over what is relatively recent human history, at least for some fraction of humans, for example in the apparent adaptation to lactose among descendants of early European farmers. For such reasons I would not rule out a greater appreciation of peace due to recent evolutionary changes, but like you I would not consider it probable. -gts From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 13 22:42:05 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:42:05 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <18455612.435341173819845751.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <18455612.435341173819845751.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <3987.163.1.72.81.1173825725.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> pjmanney wrote: > Just to be clear, I'm specifically looking to power a hippocampus > prosthesis. Just a note if you want some technical/surgical stuff: the hippocampus gets its blood from the choroidal arteries and the blood leaves along the vein of Galen, also known as the great cerebral vein. I think it has about the same capacity as the sagittal vein I was talking about earlier, but it is deep on the inside. If you have heat emission problems, this arrangement perhaps will make it slightly harder to do good cooling compared to my previous example where one could actually add external heat sinks on the scalp (which is probably a silly idea, but so what). So the constraints on the chip will be a bit harder. But it is also next to the lateral ventricles of the brain, so they can either be used as a heat buffer or as a place to put a few cubic millimeters of extra hardware (the available volume is a few milliliters). An interesting complication if the chip draws significant amount of sugar is that it might give less sugar to subsequent parts of the artery-vene loop. This is an obvious design problem and presumably can be solved by linking it up to either the venes (the brain can't deplete all the sugar) or some unneeded branch of the choroidal arteries (since you are replacing stuff in the hippocampus you might take a branch that would have supplied the excised tissue). -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 13 23:44:57 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:44:57 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### But let's consider the economic aspects here: There is likely to > be a positive correlation between the amount of computing power > devoted to the acquisition of computational resources and the amount > of computing power an entity gains. Therefore the entities that use a > part of their computational resources for bliss will not be able to > gain resources as quickly as entities that are not so encumbered. They > may also be unable to resist the loss of computational resources, > given the likely persistence of scarcity and competition for > resources. > > In other words, they'll first eat your servitor, and if you don't pay > your electricity bill, they'll eat you too. This is assuming there is a correlation between computer resources and potential for pleasure. I'm not sure it's true that having twice as big a brain means you can have twice as much pleasure, even if it means you can be twice as smart. Perhaps within a brain the more neurons that fire in a particular area, the more intense the sensation, but why should the per neuron sensation be a particular value? There would have to be some sort of psychophysical law relating physical activity to sensation if that were the case. Secondly, one of the advantages of mind modification is that you can put limits on your desire for pleasure, or your desire to increase pleasure. Even drug addicts who have little control over their cravings can do this to an extent, otherwise they wouldn't live long enough to indulge another day. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 01:08:57 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:08:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:44:57 -0400, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Secondly, one of the advantages of mind modification is that you can put > limits on your desire for pleasure, or your desire to increase pleasure. > Even drug addicts who have little control over their cravings can do > this to an extent, otherwise they wouldn't live long enough to indulge > another day. I'm sorry and embarrassed and probably wrong to imply that I might know more about drug addiction than you, but I hope you will at least allow me to speculate about this subject. :) Seems to me that, contrary to your supposition, serious drug addicts (e.g., those who inject heroin or cocaine into their bloodstreams) see almost no limits to their possible pleasure. John Clark made the point that something like side-effect-free drug addiction might explain the Fermi Paradox. I agree wholeheartedly, and add that such a capability, if it were present in a sentient population, might lead to its own extinction. Why should any being have sex or engage in other possible procreative activities if it is just as pleasurable to turn up the pleasure knob? Drug addicts are wrong about many things, but they know better than to think naively that sexual orgasms are the ultimate pleasure available to humans. Sans procreativity, civilizations die. -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 14 02:23:04 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:23:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0703120222h7278bbe8jd35b1d00fbe2bcc6@mail.gmail.com> <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070313212232.023002e8@satx.rr.com> >Why should any being have sex or engage in other possible procreative >activities if it is just as pleasurable to turn up the pleasure knob? So to speak. From emlynoregan at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 02:33:44 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:03:44 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: <044b01c76504$5a227270$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <518621.17694.qm@web60519.mail.yahoo.com> <044b01c76504$5a227270$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <710b78fc0703131933h6ea88cfaoc24289fbefff3b15@mail.gmail.com> > > Stand firm, never back down, and fight on till it's over, > over there. Too bad for the West that our women don't > have the fortitude of the Spartan women. > > Nor our men, for that matter! > > Lee Don't we have robots for this yet? Oh yes, apparently we (or the Israelis at any rate) do... http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyid=2007-03-08T103103Z_01_L08481636_RTRUKOC_0_US-ISRAEL-ROBOT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 Is that Kosher? Emlyn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 14 03:35:35 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:35:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200703140345.l2E3jtTA002947@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps > Subject: [extropy-chat] 300 and the Gates of Fire > > Keith: > >"Knowing the likely outcome of the battle, Leonidas selected his men on > one > >simple criterion: he took only men who had fathered sons that were old > >enough to take over the family responsibilities of their fathers. > > That might not be the truth, however (according to another source). > Leonidas might have chosen the particular 300 because of the _mothers_ > of the 300 ... :-) > > Amara Perhaps the story influenced or was influenced by the account of Gideon, who chose 300 guys to fight a skerjillion Midionites. Read all about it in Judges chapter 7. The Gideons won, then went around afterwards leaving bibles in hotel rooms. I figure we should stage the Midionites revenge: go around leaving porno in church pews or something. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 04:47:12 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:47:12 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, gts wrote: On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:44:57 -0400, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > Secondly, one of the advantages of mind modification is that you can put > > limits on your desire for pleasure, or your desire to increase pleasure. > > Even drug addicts who have little control over their cravings can do > > this to an extent, otherwise they wouldn't live long enough to indulge > > another day. > > I'm sorry and embarrassed and probably wrong to imply that I might know > more about drug addiction than you, but I hope you will at least allow me > to speculate about this subject. :) > > Seems to me that, contrary to your supposition, serious drug addicts > (e.g., those who inject heroin or cocaine into their bloodstreams) see > almost no limits to their possible pleasure. > > John Clark made the point that something like side-effect-free drug > addiction might explain the Fermi Paradox. I agree wholeheartedly, and add > that such a capability, if it were present in a sentient population, might > lead to its own extinction. > > Why should any being have sex or engage in other possible procreative > activities if it is just as pleasurable to turn up the pleasure knob? Drug > addicts are wrong about many things, but they know better than to think > naively that sexual orgasms are the ultimate pleasure available to humans. > > Sans procreativity, civilizations die. As it happens, I do deal with people who have drug abuse problems on a daily basis, working as a doctor in public psychiatry. Most are not actually addicts, but even those who are at least profess a desire to work, have relationships, and so on. Their problem is, as you suggest, that these other activities seem bland by comparison with their drug of choice. They say things like, "I wish I didn't like smack so much", or "I wish I found spending time with my family as exciting as using ice". The ones who really don't care about anything except the drug and don't *wish* to care about anything except the drug are very rare and often have another psychiatric diagnosis, such as depression or schizophrenia. So, if they had the power to modify their minds so that they no longer were tempted by the drug, or to keep the pleasurable effects of the drug but assign them to any other activity, most addicts would do so. If I could summarise the drug addiction-like risks of mind modification thus: AGAINST - unlimited pleasure instantly available - no side-effects - no negative feedback/ satiety mechanisms FOR - ability to turn off addiction/ craving at will - ability to reassign pleasure without loss of intensity to purposeful activity We can't know how things will work out for sure, but I think in a posthuman society although there will be a pool of people who withdraw to idleness in computer heaven, there will be a dynamic equilibrium with those who are living what we today would call productive lives, and there is no reason why new posthumans cannot be created at any point to maintain the balance (it goes without saying that sexual reproduction will be a quaint affectation in a society where minds can be created and edited at will on computers). Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 14 05:07:02 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:07:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen wrote > Actually, this was one argument. Another was that lookup tables mapping > sensorics to motorics are deterministic, if without inner state. > If you add internal state, and evolutions on such, you've got a conventional > computer. This is no longer a lookup table, giant, or otherwise. Not completely sure what you mean, but my main point is this: either subsequent states are *computed* from past states, or they are not. If they are somehow "looked up", or somehow displayed in an arbitrary or non-arbitrary fashion and there's no causation between them, then it's extremely implausible that anyone is having an experience. For otherwise, we might just find random patches of dust already existing between the galaxies, and by looking at them the right way, discern sequences of states congruent to a thinking, feeling being. About as silly as Hillary Putnam's proof that rocks perform computations. > > parts of it receding from us, so what? We don't want to depend on > > arguments that work only in our universe, but not in other MWI branches > > totally identical to ours except for astronomical facts. > How do you know there are such branches? The same way you know that the universe is finite, I guess. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 14 05:16:59 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:16:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Gordon (gts) writes > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:43:38 -0400, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> If you want to explain something, explain why > >> 4. why there has been a uniform decrease of warfare per >> living human being during the course of history > > A possible contributing factor is the difference between the growth of the > human population and the growth in the number of nation-states capable of > waging the kinds of wars about which have any statistics. I doubt it. The trend is just too unmistakeable. If you were to just look at the wars between France and England over 500 years alone, the advance of peace is relentless. Whereas you can scarcely pick up a history book on pre-literate peoples without accounts of almost constant warring, or at least preparation for war. The history of Central Asia, to take another example, is one long string of peoples violently displacing other peoples. The Maya provide another shocking account. The book "Maya Kings and Queens" seems often to be little more than a thousand year account of one war right on top of another. It's systematic. It's darwinian. My own idea is that wars began to decrease among civilized peoples when they become too costly in dollars and cents. It used to make economic sense to go plundering (e.g. Goth and Vandal style), but over time wealth has become concentrated in less stealable forms. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 14 05:26:42 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:26:42 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312230236.03daaeb8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <049101c7652b$c05ba8a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <45F6D10F.8090102@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <050901c765f9$ca1c1a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Thomas writes > So, are you implying that peace and population are positive correlates? Yes, and the correlation depends causally on wealth production (I submit) which gives rise simultaneously to larger populations and peace. I also agreed with the only other analysis I've read so far in the replies, namely gts's. > Can you tell me about the simply most peaceful 50 years span in > recorded history (*not* related to population) and perhaps speculate > on the reasons? Human population growth has been pretty much monotonic, so this is difficult to say. I do believe that large empires maintained peaceful interiors (for the most part), and so I would look to empires such as the Russian, the Chinese, the Mongol, the Roman, and the British. Of course, empires always have a very nasty transition cost whereby they have to kill large numbers of people on their way up. Julius Caesar is estimated to have been responsible for the deaths of two million Gauls. Maybe the first two centuries A.D. when the Chinese Han and Roman Empires were relatively stable? Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 05:30:50 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:30:50 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Lee Corbin wrote: For otherwise, we might just find random patches of dust already existing > between the galaxies, and by looking at them the right way, discern > sequences of states congruent to a thinking, feeling being. About as > silly as Hillary Putnam's proof that rocks perform computations. The motion of the dust particles is certainly causally related, and dust cloud is also increasing in entropy with time. Functionalism says that a computation can be multiply implemented, and the experiences of any ensuing mind is substrate-independent. In principle, even with your constraints, there seems to be no reason why a dust cloud can't think. Putnam and Searle have used the rock example as a reductio ad absurdum against functionalism. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 14 05:33:49 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:33:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> At 10:16 PM 3/13/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: >If you were to just >look at the wars between France and England over 500 years alone, >the advance of peace is relentless. > >Whereas you can scarcely pick up a history book on pre-literate peoples >without accounts of almost constant warring, or at least preparation for >war. I don't have immediate access to numbers, or time to search for them, but I suspect your scaling is misleading. Tribes and clans that make "warfare" a bloody and deadly recurrent part of ordinary life are very much smaller than nation states, even those of 500 years ago. The equivalent of Australian aboriginal and Amazonian tribal "warfare" seems to me more likely the territorial tussles and drive-by slayings between gangs in parts of LA and the Bronx (if that's where they hang out these days), and equivalent ghettoized regions of European nations, except that the cops constitute an intrusion from a larger imperial realm--although police probably stay clear of the internal dynamics, knowing full well that such "wars" are inevitable, so why get in the middle? Fractal warfare dynamics, that's my guess. Or maybe that's expressing it wrongly, if the drivers are *not* self-similar at various scales. Is there a sociologist in the room? Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Wed Mar 14 05:44:08 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:44:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:16 PM 3/13/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > > >>If you were to just >>look at the wars between France and England over 500 years alone, >>the advance of peace is relentless. >> >>Whereas you can scarcely pick up a history book on pre-literate peoples >>without accounts of almost constant warring, or at least preparation for >>war. > > I don't have immediate access to numbers, or time to search for them, > but I suspect your scaling is misleading. Tribes and clans that make > "warfare" a bloody and deadly recurrent part of ordinary life are > very much smaller than nation states, even those of 500 years ago. Damien, I don't have a reference ready to hand, but IIRC the net chance of dying of violence in a hunter-gatherer society is pretty damned high. Their warlikeness has not been exaggerated. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 14 05:50:15 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:50:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] =?iso-8859-1?q?Pentagon=92s_human_enhancement_proj?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ect?= Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314004817.02344970@satx.rr.com> This is Just. Fucking. Amazing: Be More Than You Can Be NOAH SHACHTMAN - Wired "Heat-resistant. Cold-proof. Tireless. Tomorrow?s soldiers are just like today?s ? only better. Inside the Pentagon?s human enhancement project." From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 14 05:53:38 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:53:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> At 10:44 PM 3/13/2007 -0700, Eliezer wrote: >Damien, I don't have a reference ready to hand, but IIRC the net chance >of dying of violence in a hunter-gatherer society is pretty damned high. > Their warlikeness has not been exaggerated. That was half my point. The other half was that the equivalent now is not nations but ferocious pockets of underclasses. From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 06:01:54 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:01:54 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > That was half my point. The other half was that the equivalent now is > not nations but ferocious pockets of underclasses. > That also partly explains the wide differences in life expectancy between different groups in society. (As well as violence, there is also drugs, disease, access to medical services, etc.) It is very significant that a young black male on death row actually has a longer life expectancy than if he was out roaming the streets of death. BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 14 06:38:53 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:38:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <051c01c76603$a4075ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 3/14/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > For otherwise, we might just find random patches of dust already existing > > between the galaxies, and by looking at them the right way, discern > > sequences of states congruent to a thinking, feeling being. About as > > silly as Hillary Putnam's proof that rocks perform computations. > > The motion of the dust particles is certainly causally related, and dust cloud > is also increasing in entropy with time. Certainly. But that's hardly sufficient for computation. But I interrupt... > Functionalism says that a computation can be multiply implemented, and > the experiences of any ensuing mind is substrate-independent. In principle, > even with your constraints, there seems to be no reason why a dust cloud > can't think. The ability to think is an extremely carefully crafted artifact that doesn't just come about by accident; it took evolution a long time to come up with thinking beings. Perhaps I'm not understanding your argument. > Putnam and Searle have used the rock example as a reductio ad absurdum > against functionalism. Oh, so *that* was what was going on. Thanks for the explanation. Lee Stathis Papaioannou From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 14 06:51:48 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:51:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com><45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <052301c76605$c4a11870$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes > At 10:44 PM 3/13/2007 -0700, Eliezer wrote: > >> Damien, I don't have a reference ready to hand, but IIRC the net chance >> of dying of violence in a hunter-gatherer society is pretty damned high. >> Their warlikeness has not been exaggerated. > > That was half my point. The other half was that the equivalent now is > not nations but ferocious pockets of underclasses. They might indeed make comparable fatalities per capita, seems to me. What we would really love to have is one's chance of dying violently in an *average* pre-literate society, even though the variance is high. Among American Indian tribes, for example, we have the Iroquois on one extreme and the Northwest coastal Indians on the other. But then, the variance for inner city youth gangs in America today may be pretty high also. But enough of North America---why has South America (again, per capita) been so peaceful the last century or so? Those countries really used to know how to go at each other, e.g., the Lopez War in the late 1860s, in which Paraguay's population went from 1.4 million to 200,000 due to trying to take on Brazil, Argintina, and Chile simultaneously. Lee From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 14 08:05:36 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:05:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070314080536.GE31912@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:08:57PM -0400, gts wrote: > Seems to me that, contrary to your supposition, serious drug addicts > (e.g., those who inject heroin or cocaine into their bloodstreams) see > almost no limits to their possible pleasure. Since drugs are cheap and plentiful, I guess this means that everyone is a drug addict (checks for injection marks)... Nope. Here's at least one human who's not. > John Clark made the point that something like side-effect-free drug > addiction might explain the Fermi Paradox. I agree wholeheartedly, and add > that such a capability, if it were present in a sentient population, might > lead to its own extinction. Populations have one thing going for them: diversity. Only monoclones go extinct (see bamboo). > Why should any being have sex or engage in other possible procreative > activities if it is just as pleasurable to turn up the pleasure knob? Drug How do you know it's so pleasurable if you're so opposed to it you never even try once? > addicts are wrong about many things, but they know better than to think > naively that sexual orgasms are the ultimate pleasure available to humans. > > Sans procreativity, civilizations die. Indidividuals and groups of individuals die. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 14 09:11:53 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:11:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070314091153.GN31912@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:07:02PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Not completely sure what you mean, but my main point is this: either Lookup tables are functions, mapping input to output. They don't include history, as in internal state representing past states. > subsequent states are *computed* from past states, or they are not. Lookup tables don't include history. > If they are somehow "looked up", or somehow displayed in an arbitrary > or non-arbitrary fashion and there's no causation between them, then > it's extremely implausible that anyone is having an experience. Yes, lookup tables without history/internal state are not much of observers. > For otherwise, we might just find random patches of dust already existing > between the galaxies, and by looking at them the right way, discern Of course "looking at them the right way" is a giant can of worms. > sequences of states congruent to a thinking, feeling being. About as > silly as Hillary Putnam's proof that rocks perform computations. Yes. You can interprent a random sequence in any way you like, shifting the burden into interpretation, not the sequence. > > > parts of it receding from us, so what? We don't want to depend on > > > arguments that work only in our universe, but not in other MWI branches > > > totally identical to ours except for astronomical facts. > > > How do you know there are such branches? > > The same way you know that the universe is finite, I guess. We know about inflation from astronomy, and from dark energy runaway we know there's a maximum region from which you can extract computation, before the event horizont pulls the final curtain. These are uncontested observations. There is so far absolutely no evidence for the multiverse, other than it is being a neat idea. That is not enough for a theory. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 09:20:16 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:20:16 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <051c01c76603$a4075ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <051c01c76603$a4075ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Lee Corbin wrote: Stathis writes > > > On 3/14/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > For otherwise, we might just find random patches of dust already > existing > > > between the galaxies, and by looking at them the right way, discern > > > sequences of states congruent to a thinking, feeling being. About as > > > silly as Hillary Putnam's proof that rocks perform computations. > > > > The motion of the dust particles is certainly causally related, and dust > cloud > > is also increasing in entropy with time. > > Certainly. But that's hardly sufficient for computation. But I > interrupt... > > > Functionalism says that a computation can be multiply implemented, and > > the experiences of any ensuing mind is substrate-independent. In > principle, > > even with your constraints, there seems to be no reason why a dust cloud > > can't think. > > The ability to think is an extremely carefully crafted artifact that > doesn't > just come about by accident; it took evolution a long time to come up > with thinking beings. Perhaps I'm not understanding your argument. According to computationalism (which entails functionalism) the brain is Turing emulable, and any physical implementation of the appropriate Turing machine will reproduce the brain's thinking. The tricky part is defining what counts as an implementation of a Turing machine. It's not such a problem if the putative computer is not conscious. You can argue that the random thermal motion of atoms in a rock map onto an abstract machine carrying out some calculation, but in order for this to be a useful/ recognisable computation the observer needs to work out the mapping function which will involve the observer actually doing the computation himself, using some non-rock computer. Hence, saying that the rock carries out the computation is at best trivially true, at worst meaningless: computations are computations relative to some environment or observer. But what if the putative computer is a conscious entity, dreaming away without any external inputs? In that case, it seems unfair to say that it is only conscious if an external observer can peer inside and figure out what it is thinking. A conscious entity interacts with itself, knows its own mind, has no need for external interaction or knowledge of the mapping function in order to be conscious. It bootstraps itself into awareness, even if without inputs and without anyone being able to figure it out, it will never be able to interact with the substrate of its implementation. > Putnam and Searle have used the rock example as a reductio ad absurdum > > against functionalism. > > Oh, so *that* was what was going on. Thanks for the explanation. Thus, either every physical system implements multiple conscious computations, OR some implementations are specially blessed by God to be conscious, OR computationalism is wrong. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 09:25:41 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:25:41 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <20070314091153.GN31912@leitl.org> References: <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070314091153.GN31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: Of course "looking at them the right way" is a giant can of worms. > > > sequences of states congruent to a thinking, feeling being. About as > > silly as Hillary Putnam's proof that rocks perform computations. > > Yes. You can interprent a random sequence in any way you like, shifting > the burden into interpretation, not the sequence. Yes, yes. There's not just the computation to consider, there is also the observer or the environment. But what if the computation *is* the observer and the environment, dreaming away with no external interaction? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 14 09:28:59 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:28:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070314092859.GP31912@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:30:50PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The motion of the dust particles is certainly causally related, and Dust particles are not a billard ball computer a la Fredkin/Toffoli. > dust cloud is also increasing in entropy with time. Functionalism says A billard ball computer can be entirely reversible. The entropy increase is not a computation requirement, it's just a case of evolving away from a high order state, which is an infinitesimal island in the set of all possible states. > that a computation can be multiply implemented, and the experiences of > any ensuing mind is substrate-independent. In principle, even with > your constraints, there seems to be no reason why a dust cloud can't Whoa, there. There's a giant gap in logic, and no sign of a bridge across it yet. > think. > Putnam and Searle have used the rock example as a reductio ad absurdum > against functionalism. It seems Putnam and Searle don't know the difference between a computer and a rock. Given that Searle thought the Chinese Room was an example of something other than the depth of his own ignorance, that's not a name with a lot of ring to it. As to Putnam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam does not strike me as an impressive accomplishment track. So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And did Adam really have a navel? Can God really make a rock larger than she could lift? And do we really care? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 14 09:41:20 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:41:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070314091153.GN31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070314094120.GQ31912@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:25:41PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Yes, yes. There's not just the computation to consider, there is also > the observer or the environment. But what if the computation *is* the > observer and the environment, dreaming away with no external > interaction? It doesn't matter, you still have to do the computation. Enumerating all possible states requires an infinite computer. There is no evidence for any such thing. Even if you had such a thing, it is not obvious that observers self select the states, magically picking slices out of sequence. The Life cellular automaton is an all-purpose computer. It means it can contain observers and a virtual world. What does hash Life http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=VWP&q=hash+life&btnG=Search mean to the observer trajectory? You certainly can't talk to a nonlinearly evolving critter, because you need a contiguous piece of trajectory to map input and output to. So I don't see how you can validate the subjective experience. The target state being the same due to computation shortcut is not dynamics. If you select subsequent targets, you're falling back to the conventional implementation. This is a simple model system, it should be trivial to reason about it. I don't have the time, anyone feels to rise up to the challenge? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 11:36:12 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:36:12 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <20070314094120.GQ31912@leitl.org> References: <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070314091153.GN31912@leitl.org> <20070314094120.GQ31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:25:41PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Yes, yes. There's not just the computation to consider, there is also > > the observer or the environment. But what if the computation *is* the > > observer and the environment, dreaming away with no external > > interaction? > > It doesn't matter, you still have to do the computation. Enumerating > all possible states requires an infinite computer. There is no evidence > for any such thing. Even if you had such a thing, it is not obvious that > observers self select the states, magically picking slices out of > sequence. Yes, you have to do the computation, but who decides what counts as an implementation of a computation/ of a particular Turing machine? You could make it completely bizarre and counterintuitive, for example saying that ones and zeroes are represented by particular birds flying to and from particular trees in a forest. Your scheme could change from day to day as the computation progresses: red birds and yellow birds on Wednesdays, green birds and brown birds on Thursdays, etc. It would be perfectly legitimate according to a particular mapping scheme, and if you knew what this scheme was, you could look at the birds flying to and fro and say, "aha, the computer is now experiencing an itch behind its left virtual ear". If you claim that the computer won't experience the itch unless you look at it and understand that that is what is happening, you are saying something very strange about the nature of consciousness: that we can only be conscious if another observer is actively noting that we are conscious. As for the idea that observers "magically" pick slices out of sequence, the point is, it is impossible to know where your present moment is in sequence. You can't know that your program wasn't started a nanosecond ago, or that what would subjectively be next Tuesday wasn't in real time run last week. All you have knowledge of is your present moment. The illusion of being an individual progressing forward in time is maintained without any need for sequencing. Indeed, that is the underlying idea behind block universe theories of time, making them empirically indistinguishable from linear theories of time. Stathis Papaioannou As for observers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 11:38:48 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:38:48 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <20070314092859.GP31912@leitl.org> References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070314092859.GP31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: As to Putnam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam does not > strike me as an impressive accomplishment track. > > So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And did Adam > really have a navel? Can God really make a rock larger than she > could lift? As the cited article describes, Hilary Putnam originated functionalism and multiple realisability in philosophy of mind, justification for the idea that you can swap your brain for an appropriately configured digital computer and remain conscious and the same person. That you seem to take this theory as a given is a tribute to his work, of sorts. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 14 14:51:00 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:51:00 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <051c01c76603$a4075ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Thus, either every physical system implements multiple conscious > computations, OR some implementations are specially blessed by God to be > conscious, OR computationalism is wrong. Or more simply, consciousness is not what you think it is. Rather than the privileged internal point of view that you imagine of yourself and by extension all conscious entities, a more coherent and parsimonious understanding of "consciousness" is as describing a feature of any system able to introspect. - Jef From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 15:31:05 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:31:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <62c14240703120600o42a46eabsb0ce770d7219598@mail.gmail.com> <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> On 3/13/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Still, I could be wrong. It would be interesting to see if one could use > Adami-type evolutionary statistical mechanics arguments on the evolution > of posthuman motivational clades and how likely it would be that slight > differences in economic fitness would produce radically dominant > evolutionary clades. Sounds like a great research project for someday when > somebody has time. Now I must work - how delightful! Yay! > ### We need to keep in mind that our present society is not anywhere close to evolutionary equilibrium. Many of our mental characteristics are adaptations to the life in the African savannah, 200 000 years ago. At that time and place, our ancestors spent essentially all of their time obtaining the resources needed for maintenance and replication of their genes. Status seeking, signaling, envy, dominance, and yes, even a bit of leisure - all of these helped to get more food, destroy enemies, gain sexual access, or protect offspring. Our ancestors may have had occasionally fun, but essentially all they ever did was to work on the survival of their genes. Under conditions of evolutionary equilibrium working on your survival is almost all that living creatures do, from the amoeba, and the cockroach, to the lion and the whale. Now, we have inherited a lot of proclivities that no longer contribute to survival but since almost all of us inherited them to almost the same degree, the competition among us does not result in radical differences in survival. What we see as "fun" or "leisure" (sports, sex, eating) are in fact activities that used to be "work" - the stuff your genes "think" they need to survive. Our genes just didn't have the time to catch up with the present situation, since the it is only about a few hundred years ago that our current way of life started emerging. (BTW - this is why the trends you mention above, more leisure and more pleasure with more technology, are misleading - our current amount of leisure is a 300 year blip on a graph spanning 3 billion years of evolution) But, with self-modification there will be much more profound differences in productivity. The mind that builds itself to do nothing but to maximize access to resources, and to multiply as quickly as possible, ideally adapted to the year year 2030, will not have a "slight" edge in economic fitness over those still adapted to the year 200 000 BC - it will be a gaping chasm. The speed with which you will be able to adapt yourself to the prevailing conditions will no longer be limited by the snail's pace of evolution - you will be able to adapt as soon as you understand what is needed, work out the mods to your mind, and reboot. In other words, the posthuman minds could be in evolutionary equilibrium all the time. Of course, it is possible that the most efficient minds will use happiness or pleasure (i.e. the computational paradigms that have the subjective correlate of happiness) as an indispensable component of their motivational structure. Maybe computing happiness really is needed to orchestrate the diverse agents that make up a complex mind, so as to act in harmony for long-term goals. Perhaps. Obviously, I know next to nothing about the design space of minds in general - my naive guess is that there are many ways to skin the cat, and minds without this motivational trick are possible, and frequently will survive better than the ones dependent on it. However, I am moderately confident that sinking large fractions of your computing (and other) resources on pleasure for pleasure's sake will severely limit survival, and will be quickly weeded out of the ecosystem, once evolution starts running on Internet time. Rafal From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 14 16:12:08 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:12:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War is Easy to Explain - Peace is Not Message-ID: <000301c76653$b40bcf20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Of course, one explanation for the decrease of wars in the last two centuries, and especially in the last 50 years, is that the evil giant corporations ruling the world find that war interferes with their mining operations. Their extraction, that is, of money from the world's poor. Lee From fortean1 at mindspring.com Tue Mar 13 04:05:13 2007 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] 300 - Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. Message-ID: <26276774.1173758714520.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Forwarded Message----- >From an another ML. Best, Kevin the hapless french guy ----- Original Message ----- Lets see where to begin. I am a history major, soon to be an MA in history and I have always loved war movies. Yes I know very strange for a woman. Shouldnt we be worried about the latest gear from Chanel and what color to paint the bathroom? But alas some of us can do both. One of those women is moi. Anyway: The movie does not follow the historical accounts of Herodotus and other Greek historians. It follows Frank Miller's graphic novel. Now some here can snicker. Snicker all you want. The vision Miller had for 300 came from a moment of clarity he had while being on the same ground Leonidas fought with his men. He took it back with him and wrote the book. To Miller, Thermopolae and Leonidas stand with his ragged 300 was the saving moment for everything great about the west and who we are. Their stand did not merely save democracy, it saved a place where Alexander could ride his great Bucephales at the head of an army that to this day still staggers the imagination and Hellenize the world. It saved things like Homer, Ovid and Virgil. It saved things like Aristophanes, and Plato, Socrates and Sappho. That battle preserved a small town in the Italian hills above the River Tiber that would one day realize glory no Spartan could imagine and that city was called Rome, her armies oweing their toughness and discipline to their Spartan forebearers. That battle saved Christianity and created a place where Michelangelo, and Leonardo could create the greatest masterpiences the world has ever known. And what of England? What sorts of literature and heroism would have come from that Island had their been no Greece civilization, no Rome? And without England, there would have been no adventerous men to sail west with nothing more than a dream and a power to create something that truly exemplifies what the west and our culture is all about, The United States of America. We are not a Democracy, but a representative republic. But the spirit of freemen standing to fight tyranny be it against a god king like Xerxes, or against a tyrannical terrorist king hiding in a cave in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan is still the same. There are turning points in history, moments when an entire world can go one way or another forever and the Spartans at the Hot Gates was a historical turning point. That Victor Davis Hanson gave this film his blessing speaks volumes to me. SPOILER if you have not seen 300 read no further. Now about the film itself. It was violent and bloody. But I don't bother with violence at a war movie. I never flinched not once except for a decapitation that made me shudder a little. What I liked was the feeling that it was on location and it wasn't. That the CGI was so good that you never noticed it. You were in Sparta, at the Hot Gates, in Xerxes encampment. There was no feeling of artificiality. The set drew you into that world. Then there is the story itself. It moved along, you were never bored or tired even though one pock marked teeny bopper girl whined about the talky parts. I could tell her brain was sending out flat lines. The battle plot line was systematic and unrelenting. There is a moment, when Leonidas turns his head and the gleam in his eyes was that of a lion. You knew that the Persians were coming yet again that the boys would have no respite and come the Persians did. And the Persians paid a high price again. The relationships between Leonidas and his men is something else that seemed fresher than the usual offering we get: Tom Hanks listening to his troops whining. It actually, I have to say considering how many military men I know, seemed more realistic. Leonidas is a leader, every ounce of Gerry's ability made that clear. He is aloof, and yet accessible as all Generals must be in order to be do the job they must to protect their men, fight a battle and win a war. He has his right hand men like Delios, played by Dominic West and Captain played by Vincent Regan that know his mind completely. These men are his chiefs of staff as it were. He depends on them, he knows them, and they understand and know him. Those relationships were magnificently portrayed and like I said better than many about modern warfare. I look at Leonidas and his 300 as being a mere Battalion. Leonidas more of a Lieu. Col. rather than a General officer because its a small detachment and these are all men he knows, men he has fought with before and men he can depend on. So in other words these are his staff, he has his adjutant, his executive offier. His company and platoon commanders. And like any Lieu. Col. he is on the field fighting with his men. Facing the enemy toe to toe as is what we see now in Afghanistan and to a certain extent in Iraq. This whole sub plot of how the soldiers relate to each other is as important as any other part of the story. And like I said it's far more realistic than many modern warfare films. The leadership displayed by Gerry is outstanding. He said once he didn't know he had that inner lion but the lion definetly roared. I was watching him and thinking, there is a man the guys around me would follow to hell and back. And what was so great is that I think we all saw something of an epiphany in him. I believe he really stepped into a far more comfortable area of himself because of this role. He amazed me. He was Leonidas. Nothing of the lady killer, goof ball with the bad boy grin was there but this gigantic and magnificent man who was fearless, strong and a force to be reckoned with. This man would never surrender or back down. He would never kneel or bow down to anyone. Like I said this was a guy who played a disfigured genius haunting the Paris Opera in one film and a magnificent solder King fighting to protect his country, his wife and his child from tyranny. Now if you think about it that is a stretch for an actor, especially an actor with leading man looks. OK, no more hero worship. The relationship between Leonidas and Gorgo was amazing. It was one of the things that brought me to tears because that is something that normally isn't portrayed realistically in film. Even in We Were Soldiers, a film I loved Mel's relationship with Madeline Stowe seemed disingenuine. But this was altogether something different. The love scene (I refuse to call a husband and wife making love on screen like that in a beautiful film like this a sex scene.Xerxes and the hunchback maybe...snicker) was so beautiful. I didn't feel it was pornographic, or forced. Very natural. Very romantic and quiet. They said it took a whole day to film because of the angles etc. So what we see here is probably as much work to come out right as any of the battle scenes. All I can say is it worked. It solidified the relationship between Leonidas and Gorgo right there. Wow. And for the girls that tushy scene is worth every dime spent. WOW. WOW. WOW. And Gorgo herself, after Leonidas marches away to certain doom takes on a role that goes beyond what you would expect. Her speech to the council was powerful and her actions when Theron screws her over are justified. She does what she has to to help her husband, and protect him. People always seem to dis the roles that military wives play but Gorgo is the epitomy of the military wife. She takes care of what's at home. She does what is nessasary and she is as strong as her husband is. She has to be. As she said Spartan women give birth to real men. She knows what is expected. Protect his back. Take care of him at home while he takes on the Persian vulture at the gates. Her bargining, her deal making its all understandable. She knows what she has to say, her words are inspired. But she is also naive and when she realizes the deal she made with Theron is broken she does again what she has to and proves he is a coward, a cheat and a traitor. Rodrigo Santoro was unrecognizable as Xerxes. He was neither man nor woman but this ambisexual being that could pull a person in and repel them all at the same time. He did a great job capturing that bizarre character trait. When one first sees him one thinks: Now I have finally seen a person who could set off an air port metal detector from 85 feet away. He frankly grossed me out. I know thats the way that Miller protrayed him, all piercings and bald, like Tutankamun on red bull or some freaky 80s punk rocker and I know what Xerxes sort of did look like, think Ahmadinajad with an afro and a beard. However for the movie the bald, shim look works. It makes you understand just where Xerxes sits in his own mind as well as the people he controls. But be prepared to shudder the moment you see him. Why do I think Zack Snyder is a genius. So here we go: Lets just say I wasn't distracted by the CGI. I never felt like it was fake. I was pulled in by what he put up there on the screen. I was pulled into the story and the flow of it. There were no moments when I said what's going on or where is he going with this? There were two things that bothered me. The Rhino and the Elephants. He could have cut those scenes and the movie would not have changed. Of course it was cool watching the Elephants fall off the cliff. The other wierd monsterous beings were a bit much but they do add to the mystique that the Persians felt themselves invinceable and that mere sight of their terrorizing monstrosities would make Leonidas and his 300 flee. None of that Made any sense in historical context but again one cannot let themselves be weighed down by historical knowledge with a film like this. One has to walk in and suspend reality for two hours. Its part mythology and part history and part lesson of what it takes to be a free man walking the earth. So thats my review. Yes I loved this movie. I go beyond Harrys recommendation and give it 4 stars. Because its what movies are supposed to be about. It is what Hollywood has lost. And its what I think a few rogue film makers are recapuring. I say God speed all of them. This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.printcharger.com/emailStripper.htm Terry W. Colvin Sierra Vista, Arizona From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 17:15:07 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:15:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:16:59 -0400, Lee Corbin wrote: > I doubt it. The trend is just too unmistakable. I think the trend toward peace is probably there, too. At least I certainly hope it is. Also I think your hypothesis about the increasing costs of war is an interesting and reasonable explanation for it if it exists. I'm merely questioning whether the downward trend in war-per-capita is meaningful evidence of it. Have you examined the possible mathematical relationship to which I referred? Have you looked at the numbers? I don't have them, but I was hoping you might. Even if you don't have the numbers, do you really doubt that the rate of growth in the number of war-capable nation-states about which we have any records has been lower than the rate of growth of population over the same time period? I find it difficult to imagine how this could not be true, and if it is true then we should expect to see a downward trend in war-per-capita over recorded history even if the general propensity of nations to wage war has remained unchanged. Surely you agree that if the world population doubled tomorrow, it would not follow that humans had become half as war-like. -gts From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Mar 14 18:04:57 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:04:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <052301c76605$c4a11870$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314124341.03e52d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:51 PM 3/13/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: snip >But enough of North America---why has South America (again, per >capita) been so peaceful the last century or so? Those countries really >used to know how to go at each other, e.g., the Lopez War in the late >1860s, in which Paraguay's population went from 1.4 million to 200,000 >due to trying to take on Brazil, Argintina, and Chile simultaneously. The Old Testament stories of the Israelites may not be entirely accurate history, but they do provide typical accounts of wars in a time closer to hunter-gatherer culture, when war was a serious element of population control.[11] For a recent historical example of population reduction by war, in 1864 Paraguay went to war with 3 of its neighbors. They were--needless to say--defeated. "Few defeated nations in the world's military history exhibited such a degree of devastation as the Paraguay of 1870. Its population, now estimated at only 221,000, had suffered war casualties of at least 220,000 people. Among the survivors there were only 28,000 men; women over fifteen were said to outnumber men at a ratio of more than four to one." [Kolinski (1965) p. 198]. I don't see "why war" as a complicated question. It is simple mathematics. With a more or less static technology, the environment can feed a certain number of people. Therefore in the long run there cannot be births in excess of deaths. In primitive tribes the percentage of adults who die by violence from other people goes as high as 60%. (See the Azar Gat paper http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf) This puts a lid on the population level. I claim that there is a mechanism originated in the human EEA which turns on war mode in response to perception about the future. With improving technology to feed people (and supply other needs) as long as the improvements in technology stay ahead of population growth there is no reason for wars to keep the population down. It helps a great deal if the population growth is low. The last century and especially the last 50 years have seen technology staying ahead of population growth. When and if that falters, you should expect wars to reduce the population to whatever the long term carrying capacity of the environment can support. Simple as that. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 14 17:45:35 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:45:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, gts wrote: > Surely you agree that if the world population doubled tomorrow, it would > not follow that humans had become half as war-like. Gordon, the point is not that frequency of violence is a function of population size, but that evolutionary and developmental processes that have contributed to larger sustainable systems of human organization tend to exploit principles of cooperative advantage, which are antithetical to violent behavior. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 14 18:45:26 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:45:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 3/14/07, gts wrote: > > > Surely you agree that if the world population doubled tomorrow, it would > > not follow that humans had become half as war-like. > > Gordon, the point is not that frequency of violence is a function of > population size, but that evolutionary and developmental processes > that have contributed to larger sustainable systems of human > organization tend to exploit principles of cooperative advantage, > which are antithetical to violent behavior. Gordon responded offlist that the discussion was about *war*, not violence. I understood the theme here to be war as mass-violence and why it appears to be declining. Yet if we were to narrow the discussion to war between states, I would refer back to my original statement about larger systems of organization and add that while the violent aspects are in decline, it's only becoming clearer that it is, and always has been, about economics. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 14 18:54:04 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:54:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> At 01:04 PM 3/14/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: >The last century and especially the last 50 years have seen technology >staying ahead of population growth. > >When and if that falters, you should expect wars to reduce the population >to whatever the long term carrying capacity of the environment can support. Or (maybe more importantly) epidemics, something that presumably hunter-gatherers didn't confront because they had no livestock to incubate bugs and far less frequent or intimate contact with diverse human groups. Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 14 19:17:02 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:17:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question on computational power of brain Message-ID: We've seen estimates of the computational capacity of the human brain based on estimates of the number of synaptic connections and their nominal speed. But this doesn't take into account an understanding of the usage patterns of those connections -- certainly they're not all working flat out. Given that we know the energy consumption of the brain, and (assuming we know) an efficiency factor for this biological machinery, can we arrive at a reality check for the effective, rather than total, ballpark computational equivalency? Apologies in advance if I missed this elsewhere. Comments from our resident neuro experts? - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 18:51:03 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:51:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:45:35 -0400, Jef Allbright wrote: > Gordon, the point is not that frequency of violence is a function of > population size... Of course that is true, Jef, and that is exactly my point: As a statistic, 'war-per-capita' is not very useful. Wars are not waged by individuals acting alone, (we're talking about war here, by the way, not simple violence), so why should the number of individuals on earth be in the equation? Wars are waged by individuals acting collectively, in what I've been calling 'war-capable nation-states'. This is not to say Lee's observation that global war-per-capita is decreasing is not something for us all to be happy about. It's great news, but unfortunately it seems to say as much about the human propensity to have children as it does about the human propensity to wage war. We're not interested here in the human propensity to have children. > ...but that evolutionary and developmental processes > that have contributed to larger sustainable systems of human > organization tend to exploit principles of cooperative advantage, > which are antithetical to violent behavior. But you can't know that directly from measures of war-per-capita. A more meaningful statistical observation to support Lee's hypothesis that the world is trending toward less war and more peace might be, for example, a downtrend over all of recorded history in 'wars-per-nation-state', or something similar. -gts From scerir at libero.it Wed Mar 14 19:16:32 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:16:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reboot References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com><45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c7666d$475fd640$39be1f97@archimede> http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/quantum-mechanics-and-tomb-raider/ Terence Tao's version of MWI, I did not understand if he really understands what 'Tomb Raider' has to do (if anything) with all that, and if 'Reboot' is really so dangerous for a real human macro player :-) s. Anyway it is piday! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_Day From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 14 19:59:23 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:59:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reboot In-Reply-To: <000401c7666d$475fd640$39be1f97@archimede> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <000401c7666d$475fd640$39be1f97@archimede> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314145709.0230ad80@satx.rr.com> You provide such chewy and delightful links and commentaries, Serafino! Thank you, from the bottom of my art! Or, well, from the top of my art, actually. Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 20:13:35 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:13:35 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 01:04 PM 3/14/2007 -0500, Keith wrote: > > >The last century and especially the last 50 years have seen technology > >staying ahead of population growth. > > > >When and if that falters, you should expect wars to reduce the population > >to whatever the long term carrying capacity of the environment can support. > > Or (maybe more importantly) epidemics, something that presumably > hunter-gatherers didn't confront because they had no livestock to > incubate bugs and far less frequent or intimate contact with diverse > human groups. > In the Paraguayan War the majority, possibly two thirds, of the mortality was due to bad food, bad hygiene and cholera. But apart from that point, I feel that Keith is straining to fit every war into his theory. EP has a lot going for it, but it doesn't explain *every* war. In 1864 Paraguay was a land-locked country under a ruthless dictatorship, where the dictator was rumoured to own up to half the land. The country was *under-populated*, if anything, out-numbered about ten to one by its neighbours. "Landlocked, isolated, and underpopulated, Paraguay structured its economy around a centrally administered agricultural sector, extensive cattle grazing, and inefficient shipbuilding and textile industries". The dictator Lopez had taken over from his father just two years before and was a very inexperienced politician. (That's generous, - some said he was crazy - he certainly was mad by the end of the war). Everybody in the country worked for the Lopez family, or they starved. The country didn't go to war - Lopez did. Read about the war - the whole thing was a total shambles. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 14 20:39:59 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:39:59 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question on computational power of brain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070314203959.GH31912@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 12:17:02PM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > We've seen estimates of the computational capacity of the human brain > based on estimates of the number of synaptic connections and their > nominal speed. But this doesn't take into account an understanding of The synapse is not the unit of neural computation. Pieces of dendritic tree are, and as such I would take at least 10^6 active elements for each neuron. On another list, I estimated 10^23 ops on 10^17 sites (each about 10^2..10^3 bits. > the usage patterns of those connections -- certainly they're not all > working flat out. There are metabolic limits on the amount of firing. But that's not much of a limit, because you can't excise the circutry which isn't firing right now, because it might (and will) later on. > Given that we know the energy consumption of the brain, and (assuming > we know) an efficiency factor for this biological machinery, can we > arrive at a reality check for the effective, rather than total, > ballpark computational equivalency? If you only use 10% of your brain, does this mean you can make an anatomic donation of the other 90% which is not active right now? > Apologies in advance if I missed this elsewhere. You probably haven't missed http://biosingularity.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/researchers-calculate-human-eye-can-transmit-at-the-same-rate-as-an-ethernet-connection-to-the-brain/ > Comments from our resident neuro experts? You can just page Anders, you know. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 14 21:04:24 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:04:24 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question on computational power of brain In-Reply-To: <20070314203959.GH31912@leitl.org> References: <20070314203959.GH31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > If you only use 10% of your brain, does this mean you can make > an anatomic donation of the other 90% which is not active right now? On the contrary, I'm doing all I can to *add* resources to my puny brain. I don't know of anyone who isn't using their brain, but I know of many who are mis-using. Thanks Eugen for the info. - Jef From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 14 22:23:08 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:23:08 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <051c01c76603$a4075ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/15/07, Jef Allbright wrote: On 3/14/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Thus, either every physical system implements multiple conscious > > computations, OR some implementations are specially blessed by God to be > > conscious, OR computationalism is wrong. > > Or more simply, consciousness is not what you think it is. Rather > than the privileged internal point of view that you imagine of > yourself and by extension all conscious entities, a more coherent and > parsimonious understanding of "consciousness" is as describing a > feature of any system able to introspect. Sure, and you can revise everything I've said using that definition. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 14 22:55:09 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:55:09 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: References: <03fa01c764f9$65db65a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <051c01c76603$a4075ef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/15/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > On 3/14/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > Thus, either every physical system implements multiple conscious > > > computations, OR some implementations are specially blessed by God to be > > > conscious, OR computationalism is wrong. > > > > Or more simply, consciousness is not what you think it is. Rather > > than the privileged internal point of view that you imagine of > > yourself and by extension all conscious entities, a more coherent and > > parsimonious understanding of "consciousness" is as describing a > > feature of any system able to introspect. > > Sure, and you can revise everything I've said using that definition. Well I've been doing that all along and your writing makes a pretty fine map of the territory, except for a few scattered signs saying "This way to the Homunculus!" - Jef From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Mar 14 23:04:26 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:04:26 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] Question on computational power of brain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355.163.1.72.81.1173913466.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Jef Allbright wrote: > We've seen estimates of the computational capacity of the human brain > based on estimates of the number of synaptic connections and their > nominal speed. But this doesn't take into account an understanding of > the usage patterns of those connections -- certainly they're not all > working flat out. The problem is how to define a computation. A neuron that is not firing, is it representing a long string of zeros 00000000, not participating or somewhere in between? Cortical neurons seem to be in "up" states perhaps less than 10% of the time, many probably only get activated so they can signal and participate in certain specific conditions. The average activity is pretty sparse, with firing rates <1% or so. > Given that we know the energy consumption of the brain, and (assuming > we know) an efficiency factor for this biological machinery, can we > arrive at a reality check for the effective, rather than total, > ballpark computational equivalency? We don't know the J/ops efficiency of the brain. If we knew, it would be very cool. The kind of estimates we usually do are bottom up, and pretty vulnerable to assumptions. Most of the energy cost comes from maintaining the membrane voltages rather than the neural signal themselves. So the efficiency is pretty low. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 14 22:34:43 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:34:43 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:45:26 -0400, Jef Allbright wrote: > Gordon responded offlist that the discussion was about *war*, not > violence. Wasn't meant to be offlist, my mistake. > I understood the theme here to be war as mass-violence and why it > appears to be declining. The subject of the thread mentions "War" which I think most people distinguish from other types of violence. "mass violence" is fine with me, provided we understand we aren't talking about unorganized mob riots. > Yet if we were to narrow the discussion to war between states, I would > refer back to my original statement about larger systems of > organization and add that while the violent aspects are in decline, > it's only becoming clearer that it is, and always has been, about > economics. I don't disagree with you about the economic factor. However economics can be as much a cause of war as a solution to it. (As someone once said, war is capitalism with its gloves off :) My issue with Lee concerns how best to measure the supposed decrease in the appearance of war over the course of history. I disagree that the decrease in global war-per-capita over the last 10,000 years or so can be seen as solid evidence of a meaningful decline in the propensity of nations to wage war. The decrease is possibly and I would say likely a function of the huge growth in human population over that time period relative to what I would suppose was the much more modest growth in the number war-capable nation-states. I agree it seems plausible that war has declined even after adjusting for these factors, but without more evidence we can't rule out the possibility that nation-states have remained just as war-like as ever. -gts From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Mar 15 01:36:29 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:36:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <002701c766a2$8dcd3700$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> gts writes > Surely you agree that if the world population doubled tomorrow, it would > not follow that humans had become half as war-like. No! In that case, I'd go 100% over to Keith's explanations, and anticipate that the world would become about two-hundred times as warlike! :-) Seriously, I think that I'm finally getting Gordon's point. (See for yourself, below.) You are pointing out that all other things being equal, if the countries of South America, to take a concrete example, remain constant in number over a period of time, yet undergo population increase, then the likelihood of war may not go up? I see what you are saying now, and agree that that is a factor mitigating my per-capita claims. But! Only if you interpret my claim as being about "wars per decade" or something like that. Despite, perhaps, a failure on my part to communicate it, I am really talking about on the *chance*, or *probability*, of an individual succumbing to organized violence. But even so, to take South America again for the sake of concreteness, wars as in "wars per decade" seem to have been strangely few. Of course, if they *did* happen, then we might expect casualties in proportion to the population, yet even recent wars seem to me to be relatively bloodless. A German soldier in WWII could have easily spent most of his time breaking camp, riding around in trucks, and setting up camp, as his strategic masters move divisions across the chessboard. And Germany came off the worst---about 1 in 4 died (in WWI, about 2/5 of the French soldiers died). But in the old days of total mayhem and hand to hand fighting, methinks the casualties to have been much greater for an individual. Lee P.S. Ah, so many great emails to read, so little time. ----- Original Message ----- From: "gts" To: "Lee Corbin" ; "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:16:59 -0400, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> I doubt it. The trend is just too unmistakable. > > I think the trend toward peace is probably there, too. At least I > certainly hope it is. Also I think your hypothesis about the increasing > costs of war is an interesting and reasonable explanation for it if it > exists. I'm merely questioning whether the downward trend in > war-per-capita is meaningful evidence of it. > > Have you examined the possible mathematical relationship to which I > referred? Have you looked at the numbers? I don't have them, but I was > hoping you might. > > Even if you don't have the numbers, do you really doubt that the rate of > growth in the number of war-capable nation-states about which we have any > records has been lower than the rate of growth of population over the same > time period? I find it difficult to imagine how this could not be true, > and if it is true then we should expect to see a downward trend in > war-per-capita over recorded history even if the general propensity of > nations to wage war has remained unchanged. > > Surely you agree that if the world population doubled tomorrow, it would > not follow that humans had become half as war-like. > > -gts From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Mar 15 01:49:53 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:49:53 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] The Lopez War (War of the Triple Alliance) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com><45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314124341.03e52d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <003301c766a4$ae837930$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith quoted a 1965 book [Kolinski (1965) p. 198], and I got my figures from the Encyclopedia of Military History (Dupey and Dupey, 1986). Here is what wikipedia has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Triple_Alliance "The outcome of the war was utter Paraguayan defeat. After the Triple Alliance defeated Paraguay in conventional warfare, the conflict turned into a drawn-out guerrilla-style resistance that would devastate the Paraguayan population, both military and civilian. One estimate places total Paraguayan losses - through both war and disease - as high as 1.2 million people, or 90% of its pre-war population.[2][3] A perhaps more accurate estimate places Paraguayan deaths at approximately 300,000 people out of its 500,000 to 525,000 prewar inhabitants.[4] " Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Henson" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not > At 11:51 PM 3/13/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > > snip > >>But enough of North America---why has South America (again, per >>capita) been so peaceful the last century or so? Those countries really >>used to know how to go at each other, e.g., the Lopez War in the late >>1860s, in which Paraguay's population went from 1.4 million to 200,000 >>due to trying to take on Brazil, Argintina, and Chile simultaneously. > > The Old Testament stories of the Israelites may not be entirely accurate > history, but they do provide typical accounts of wars in a time closer to > hunter-gatherer culture, when war was a serious element of population > control.[11] For a recent historical example of population reduction by > war, in 1864 Paraguay went to war with 3 of its neighbors. They > were--needless to say--defeated. > > "Few defeated nations in the world's military history exhibited such a > degree of devastation as the Paraguay of 1870. Its population, now > estimated at only 221,000, had suffered war casualties of at least 220,000 > people. Among the survivors there were only 28,000 men; women over fifteen > were said to outnumber men at a ratio of more than four to one." [Kolinski > (1965) p. 198]. > > I don't see "why war" as a complicated question. It is simple mathematics. > > With a more or less static technology, the environment can feed a certain > number of people. > > Therefore in the long run there cannot be births in excess of deaths. In > primitive tribes the percentage of adults who die by violence from other > people goes as high as 60%. (See the Azar Gat paper > http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf) This puts a lid on the > population level. I claim that there is a mechanism originated in the > human EEA which turns on war mode in response to perception about the future. > > With improving technology to feed people (and supply other needs) as long > as the improvements in technology stay ahead of population growth there is > no reason for wars to keep the population down. > > It helps a great deal if the population growth is low. > > The last century and especially the last 50 years have seen technology > staying ahead of population growth. > > When and if that falters, you should expect wars to reduce the population > to whatever the long term carrying capacity of the environment can support. > > Simple as that. > > Keith > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From brentn at freeshell.org Thu Mar 15 02:34:55 2007 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:34:55 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314124341.03e52d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314124341.03e52d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5A6E7A25-773F-4914-83E0-DC495ABE762C@freeshell.org> On Mar 14, 2007, at 14:04, Keith Henson wrote: > The last century and especially the last 50 years have seen technology > staying ahead of population growth. > > When and if that falters, you should expect wars to reduce the > population > to whatever the long term carrying capacity of the environment can > support. I think there may also be some merit to a game-theoretical approach to explaining this. Someone in this thread alluded to the economics of war, and I think there is something to be made of that point. "War" as in the concept of bloody conflict with the aim to secure capitulation seems to have decreased on a per-capita basis over time. No argument from me there. "War" as a more general concept, however, I'm not sure actually has. There is a case to be made that we've found that the most cost-effective way to engage in warfare now is economic, not militarily. Case in point is the Cold War, which was not won by guns, but rather by forcing/tricking the Soviets into breaking their economy. I've seen reasonable arguments that the trade/ currency imbalance between the US and China is such a conflict. From the aforementioned game-theory standpoint, economic war makes sense for the modern world, because it maximizes the return on investment. I know a modern history professor who would argue that this is a direct effect of the presence of nuclear weaponry, but I don't think that claim is substantiable. Brent -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Mar 15 00:55:55 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:55:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:13 PM 3/14/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: If the function of war is to reduce the population, then such side effects just improve the efficiency. >In the Paraguayan War the majority, possibly two thirds, of the >mortality was due to bad food, bad hygiene and cholera. > >But apart from that point, I feel that Keith is straining to fit every >war into his theory. EP has a lot going for it, but it doesn't explain >*every* war. If EP accounts for the origin of the species-typical behavior we know as war, then it does account for every war. Now the details of what led up to the war are going to be different in each case, and it may be hard to map it into the kinds of situation that were behind wars in the stone age, but that just detail. >In 1864 Paraguay was a land-locked country under a ruthless >dictatorship, where the dictator was rumoured to own up to half the >land. The country was *under-populated*, if anything, out-numbered >about ten to one by its neighbours. The absolute population is not important for the model. Can you say anything about which way the income per capita was going at the time leading up to the war? And perhaps even more important, how the average person felt about how bright or bleak their future was? At the start of the war it should be noted that Paraguay had more and better equipped troops than all of those it fought. >"Landlocked, isolated, and underpopulated, Paraguay structured its >economy around a centrally administered agricultural sector, extensive >cattle grazing, and inefficient shipbuilding and textile industries". > >The dictator Lopez had taken over from his father just two years >before and was a very inexperienced politician. (That's generous, - >some said he was crazy - he certainly was mad by the end of the war). Reading the Wikipedia article, the case for going to war was not as bad as you make it. Of course one of the thing I claim for the model is that humans caught up wars loose much of their ability to think rationally. >Everybody in the country worked for the Lopez family, or they starved. >The country didn't go to war - Lopez did. "The Paraguayan people had been fanatically committed to L?pez and the war effort," (Wikipedia) >Read about the war - the whole thing was a total shambles. > > Though the data would be hard to obtain, I would bet decent odds that the EP conditions that are the ultimate cause of war prevailed. Keith Henson From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 15 03:54:57 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:54:57 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070312180126.0244e780@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200703150355.l2F3t9Ce028139@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon- > based neural prostheses > > At 06:36 PM 3/12/2007 -0400, Ben wrote: > > >I think there is a watch somewhere that is powered by energy generated > >by people swinging their arms back and forth... > > Ah, a brain chip powered by *nodding*! > > > > Damien Broderick Or by chewing. Back in the old days there were watches that wound their springs by movement of the wrist, perhaps using a concentric weight on a spindle. If someone knows or can estimate the amount of power needed to run a minimal processor and interface, I can calculate the amount of energy likely to be generated by such motion with a device small enough to be reasonably implanted. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 15 05:16:23 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:16:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] bancroft and arnesen's ill fated journey In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314004817.02344970@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200703150529.l2F5TgCn004540@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Outside magazine was hyping this, but all the websites they linked have been taken down. I can't find enough details on the web to verify if this story is true, but that last comment at the bottom was just too hilarious to have been uttered in seriousness: http://www.physorg.com/news92982598.html Monday, March 12, 2007 11:01 p.m. EDT Cold Chills Global Warming Expedition An expedition designed to show how global warming is heating the Arctic had to be called off after one of the explorers got frostbite, thanks to incredibly frigid temperatures that got as low as 100 degrees below zero. Explorers Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen planned to make a 530-mile journey on foot across the Arctic Ocean, but they had to call off the trek after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment. According to The Associated Press, they had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone and had planned online posts with photographic evidence showing the alleged effects of global warming on the Arctic regions. On their Web site www.bancroftarneson.com they claim that "Arctic climate is now warming rapidly" and added that "much larger changes are projected." The cold truth, however, got in the way - the climate in the allegedly warming Arctic area turned out to be bitterly cold according to spokeswoman Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition. She told the AP that the two measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero one night, while outside temperatures were exceeding an astounding 100 below zero at times. "My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said. She added that Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze. Atwood admitted there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming had to be called off in part by extreme cold temperatures. "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability." C NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved. Other citations include the unpredictability comment. http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/technology/index.ssf?/base/national-7/1173 735570157370.xml&storylist=technology http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2944880 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1 From eugen at leitl.org Thu Mar 15 08:03:54 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:03:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Question on computational power of brain In-Reply-To: <1355.163.1.72.81.1173913466.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <1355.163.1.72.81.1173913466.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20070315080354.GK31912@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:04:26AM +0100, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Most of the energy cost comes from maintaining the membrane voltages > rather than the neural signal themselves. So the efficiency is pretty low. Christof Koch in "Biophysics of Computation" suggests as a possible Ph.D. thesis "It would be interesting to 'poison' an entire brain with TTX to block sodium action potentials, and to measure the associated energy metabolism in absence of any spiking. Is it possible that the fraction of energy devoted to homeostasis versus computation/communication is heavily skewed towards the former while in our microprocessors it is towards the latter?" The book is from 1999, so a lot has happened in ops/J since. I don't see why with MRAM-derived (static) logic and asynchronous (clockless) designs energy drain of nonactive elements wouldn't be exactly zero. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Mar 15 12:20:56 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] bancroft and arnesen's ill fated journey In-Reply-To: <200703150529.l2F5TgCn004540@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070314004817.02344970@satx.rr.com> <200703150529.l2F5TgCn004540@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <34368.72.236.102.79.1173961256.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > Outside magazine was hyping this, but all the websites they linked have been > taken down. I can't find enough details on the web to verify if this story > is true, but that last comment at the bottom was just too hilarious to have > been uttered in seriousness: > > > http://www.physorg.com/news92982598.html > In my reading I've found that *any* climate change or weather pattern (or non-pattern) is currently blamed on global warming. It certainly makes me distrustful of all the commentary. Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 14:07:08 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:07:08 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 3/15/07, Keith Henson wrote: > Though the data would be hard to obtain, I would bet decent odds that the > EP conditions that are the ultimate cause of war prevailed. > Where the evidence is available - i.e. a population given the choice of starvation / poverty versus invade the neighbours, then I am happy to agree that this would likely be the main cause of that war. (Assuming the population is allowed to choose - most dictators or rulers enforce their own will on a cowed population by executions, secret police, etc.) I really don't see the need to make up excuses to force *every* war into the EP scenario. Dictators, or, in fact, most rulers before the modern age, would not even consider the opinion of their subjects. The poor, uneducated population was regarded as 'cannon fodder' who would do as they were told - or else. Even as late as the 1914-18 war, the generals marched the lower classes into the machine guns. EP is useful at times, but not compulsory. BillK From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 14:02:07 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:02:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <002701c766a2$8dcd3700$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002701c766a2$8dcd3700$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:36:29 -0400, Lee Corbin wrote: > Seriously, I think that I'm finally getting Gordon's point. (See for > yourself, below.) You are pointing out that all other things being > equal, if the countries of South America, to take a concrete example, > remain constant in number > over a period of time, yet undergo population increase, then the > likelihood of war may not go up? Yes, and I might state it more precisely: if the number of South American countries and the frequency of wars between them remained constant while their populations increased significantly, your war-per-capita statistic would give the misleading impression that peace was breaking out all over South America. This would be true even if every South American country were in constant war with each one of its neighbors! South Americans would be cursing hell on earth, but your statistic would be giving the impression they had cause to be happy about a significant increase in peace. And I'm wondering if this is not the sort of effect you're seeing globally. > I see what you are saying now, and agree that that is a factor mitigating > my per-capita claims. But! Only if you interpret my claim as being about > "wars per decade" or something like that. I'm thinking the trend to which you're referring must be something like changes in global-wars-per-living-person-per-year, or something like that, yes. > I am really talking about on the *chance*, > or *probability*, of an individual succumbing to organized violence. Okay, but the long-term historical trend in that statistic tells us as much about the human propensity to make babies as it does about the human propensity to make (or fall victim to) war. In this thread I don't think we're very interested in the human propensity to make babies. The real question, at least the question on my mind, is whether global peace has really been on the increase over all of recorded history after adjusting for the huge growth in human population. I'd like to believe it is -- and my intuition suggests very strongly that it is -- but I'm afraid your statistic is not much help in proving it. -gts From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Mar 15 16:05:35 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:05:35 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <002701c766a2$8dcd3700$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002701c766a2$8dcd3700$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315101901.040ef4a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:02 AM 3/15/2007 -0400, gts wrote: snip >Okay, but the long-term historical trend in that statistic tells us as >much about the human propensity to make babies as it does about the human >propensity to make (or fall victim to) war. In this thread I don't think >we're very interested in the human propensity to make babies. War and the human propensity to make babies are parts of the same picture. Have *any* of you read the Azar Gat paper? "It is not that people consciously 'want' to maximize the number of their children; although there is also some human desire for children per se and a great attachment to them once they exist, it is mainly the desire for sex - Thomas Malthus's 'passion' - which functions in nature as the powerful biological proximate mechanism for maximizing reproduction; as humans, and other living creatures, normally engage in sex throughout their fertile lives, they have a vast reproductive potential, which, before effective contraception, mainly depended for its realization on environmental conditions." . . . "Resource competition is a prime cause of aggression, violence, and deadly violence in nature. The reason for this is that food, water, and, to a lesser degree, shelter against the elements are tremendous selection forces. As Darwin ([1871] 428-30), following Malthus, explained, living organisms, including humans, tended to propagate rapidly. Their numbers are constrained and checked only by the limited resources of their particular ecological habitats and by all sort of competitors, such as cospecifics, animals of other species which have similar consumption patterns, predators, parasites, and pathogens." . . . "The human - like animal - tendency for maximizing reproduction was constantly checked by resource scarcity and competition, largely by cospecifics. This competition was partly about nourishment, the basic and most critical somatic activity of all living creatures, which often causes dramatic fluctuations in their numbers." >The real question, at least the question on my mind, is whether global >peace has really been on the increase over all of recorded history after >adjusting for the huge growth in human population. I'd like to believe it >is -- and my intuition suggests very strongly that it is -- but I'm afraid >your statistic is not much help in proving it. "The somewhat better data which exist for primitive agriculturalists basically tell the same story as those for the hunter-gatherers. Among the Yanomamo about 15 percent of the adults died as a result of inter- and intra-group violence: 24 percent of the males and 7 percent of the females (Dickemann 1979: 364). The Waorani (Auca) of the Ecuadorian Amazon hold the registered world record: more than 60% percent of adult deaths over five generations were caused by feuding and warfare." State level societies are an outcome of agriculture. Such societies tend to suppress fighting inside their bounds and concentrate it on the edges. But where population growth exceeds the ability of the ecosystem to support them, the excess population is burned off in wars. Keith Henson From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu Mar 15 16:34:45 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:34:45 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 02:07 PM 3/15/2007 +0000, you wrote: >On 3/15/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > > Though the data would be hard to obtain, I would bet decent odds that the > > EP conditions that are the ultimate cause of war prevailed. > > > >Where the evidence is available - >i.e. a population given the choice of starvation / poverty versus >invade the neighbours, then I am happy to agree that this would likely >be the main cause of that war. >(Assuming the population is allowed to choose - most dictators or >rulers enforce their own will on a cowed population by executions, >secret police, etc.) > >I really don't see the need to make up excuses to force *every* war >into the EP scenario. Dictators, or, in fact, most rulers before the >modern age, would not even consider the opinion of their subjects. Dictators who didn't consider the opinion and well being of their subjects at all were usually deposed unless they died from other causes first. >The >poor, uneducated population was regarded as 'cannon fodder' who would >do as they were told - or else. Even as late as the 1914-18 war, the >generals marched the lower classes into the machine guns. Very effective. >EP is useful at times, but not compulsory. It is if your goal is to avoid wars. Keith Henson From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 15 16:52:50 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:52:50 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Research question: power supply for silicon-based neural prostheses In-Reply-To: <200703150355.l2F3t9Ce028139@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200703150355.l2F3t9Ce028139@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:54:57 -0400, spike wrote: > Back in the old days there were watches that wound their springs by > movementof the wrist Hey, those weren't the "old days", dangit! I once had one of those watches. It was beautiful and wonderful and incredibly magnificent in my eyes (even if it was also a heavy and bulky monstrosity). That watch was quite a technological marvel in its day. I wore it proudly! :) -gts (worried that I'm growing old) From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 18:42:21 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:42:21 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 3/15/07, Keith Henson wrote: > Dictators who didn't consider the opinion and well being of their subjects > at all were usually deposed unless they died from other causes first. > My instant reaction was 'Nonsense!'. ;) Tell that to Mugabe's people. Most cruel leaders are not deposed by internal rebellion because opponents are ruthlessly executed. If they don't die of old age, it is attack from the outside that defeats them. Then I thought, maybe Keith has heard about different cruel dictators to me. Stalin? Hitler? Mussolini? Saddam Hussein? Jean-Bertrand Aristide? Ivan the Terrible? Pinochet? Mao? How long a list of exceptions do you require? All old-time monarchs were usually leader for life, no matter how bad they were. But then you might claim that no matter how many they tortured or killed, they did fine by the majority of the people, so no rebellion. But they didn't, did they? They concentrated the power in their supporters, army, police, etc. and looked after them, and in turn they kept the majority in slavery conditions. For thousands of years, the general population had few rights and lived under harsh conditions where any order from the king, dictator, ruler, had to be obeyed on pain of death. Alexander didn't march across Europe because his local population wanted more food. BillK From jrd1415 at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 19:43:41 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:43:41 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Have researchers found a new state of matter? Message-ID: An intriguing article. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/ns-hrf031407.php -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 15 20:26:40 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:26:40 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Have researchers found a new state of matter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315152539.022f1630@satx.rr.com> At 12:43 PM 3/15/2007 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >An intriguing article. > >http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/ns-hrf031407.php What struck me when I read about that the other day is how nicely the model seems to resemble Orson Scott Card's "philotic rays" or superluminal connections in the Ender sequence (minus the mysticism). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philotics Damien Broderick From sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no Thu Mar 15 20:46:31 2007 From: sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:46:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no> I did not see that specific program, but seen a few others more local around here in Scandinavia. Is there people on this list that truly believe in precognition or other extraordinary abilities? There are to my knowledge, absolutely no scientific research and tests that validates that any person have or have had, any extraordinary abilities. If it where the case, we would have to rewrite our understanding of the world and the universe. /Sondre -----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, March 10, 2007 12:46 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV So--did anyone watch it? Verdict? I didn't see it, but I'm told that McMoneagle's remote viewing exercise was impressive. If you don't agree, can you say why? (My very minimal cable doesn't carry that channel.) Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ********************************************************************** This e-mail has been scanned for viruses and found clean. ********************************************************************** From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Mar 15 21:11:20 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:11:20 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no> 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> Message-ID: On 3/15/07, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > I did not see that specific program, but seen a few others more local around here in Scandinavia. > > Is there people on this list that truly believe in precognition or other > extraordinary abilities? There are to my knowledge, absolutely no > scientific research and tests that validates that any person have or > have had, any extraordinary abilities. If it where the case, we would > have to rewrite our understanding of the world and the universe. Rather than "rewrite", it would mean refining or updating, and that is always a *good* thing. That said, I agree with you that there is very little if any evidence for such effects. - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 15 22:31:14 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:31:14 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: 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> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> At 02:11 PM 3/15/2007 -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: >On 3/15/07, Sondre Bjell??s > wrote: > I did >not see that specific program, but seen a few >others more local around here in >Scandinavia. > > Is there people on this list >that truly believe in precognition or other > >extraordinary abilities? There are to my >knowledge, absolutely no > scientific research >and tests that validates that any person have >or > have had, any extraordinary abilities. If >it where the case, we would > have to rewrite >our understanding of the world and the universe. >Rather than "rewrite", it would mean refining or >updating, and that is always a *good* thing. >That said, I agree with you that there is very >little if any evidence for such effects. - Jef I asked John Clark a little while back if he'd list the major psi experiments that are faulty, and the evidence against them. He declined on the grounds that he wouldn't waste his time reading such rubbish. I now pose the same question to Sondre and Jef. (There is no lack of peer-reviewed papers available on the web, in the midst of a deluge of insane "psychic" and "astrological" crap. And of course there was the May/McMoneagle remote viewing exercise cited in that TV program, repeated tomorrow night according to PJ, which I assume nobody here watched because everyone knows in advance that it's all MEGA BULLSHIT.) Damien Broderick [My book on recent psi research, OUTSIDE THE GATES OF SCIENCE, will be published by Avalon in late May this year] From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 15 23:04:41 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:04:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> 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> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315175649.022ec7e8@satx.rr.com> At 05:31 PM 3/15/2007 -0500, I wrote: >There is no lack of peer-reviewed papers >available on the web I suppose I might as well throw in a few pointers. Look for Prof. Jessica Utts, e.g. her Parapsychology Links: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/ http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/psipapers.html or papers etc at http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/ (such as http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/MPZjacm.pdf "Anomalous Anticipatory Skin Conductance Response to Acoustic Stimuli: Experimental Results and Speculation Upon a Mechanism" Edwin. C. May, Ph.D., Tam?s Paulinyi & Zolt?n Vassy, M.Sc.) Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Mar 15 23:12:16 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:12:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> 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> Message-ID: On 3/15/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 02:11 PM 3/15/2007 -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > > >Rather than "rewrite", it would mean refining or > >updating, and that is always a *good* thing. > >That said, I agree with you that there is very > >little if any evidence for such effects. - Jef > > I asked John Clark a little while back if he'd > list the major psi experiments that are faulty, > and the evidence against them. He declined on the > grounds that he wouldn't waste his time reading > such rubbish. I now pose the same question to Sondre and Jef. > > (There is no lack of peer-reviewed papers > available on the web, in the midst of a deluge of > insane "psychic" and "astrological" crap. And of > course there was the May/McMoneagle remote > viewing exercise cited in that TV program, > repeated tomorrow night according to PJ, which I > assume nobody here watched because everyone knows > in advance that it's all MEGA BULLSHIT.) Well Damien, I believe I've always been open to the possibility, and in fact eager to learn something new that would update our understanding of the nature of nature. That's why I emphasized to Sondre that it would be a *good* thing. I haven't spent the time you have researching anomalous effects, but I've read my share of the research done by the Soviet and the US government projects, as well as academic research such as PEAR. I also watched an impressive video of McMoneagle (performing in St. Louis, IIRC) about a year or two ago. On the other hand, I have read extensively in evolutionary psychology, heuristics and biases, the major skeptic sites and and various materials having to do with illusion and chicanery, not to mention the UFO fad, ghost-hunting, and the like. I even visited a "holistics fair" recently and observed many true believers, even some selling "tachyon water." (I suspect their employer, however was not such a true believer, but rather a somewhat unethical business person.) As I said to Sondre, I seems to me that the evidence for these effects is little or none, and I weigh that relative to the perceived weight of evidence for alternate explanations. I'm quite willing to accept the reality of such psychic phenomena, to the extent that there is evidence to weigh down that side of my scales of rationality. Indeed, I remember writing to you a couple of years ago that I expect that within increasing computational capability we will find increasingly subtle effects. But for now, all the evidence I have seen is so slight and so uncertain as to be effectively nil. As for the occasional impressive and inexplicable demonstration, well, I've been mystified by professional magicians too, and I just can't get over the suspicion that if psychic powers had some effective existence, the effects would show up in the stock market, lotteries, or other areas where a small anomaly should be visible within a such a large ensemble of event data. I would be very happy to consider any stronger evidence that you might care to present. - Jef P.S. As for cold fusion, I consider it a more likely possibility and have been following the sono version of it fairly closely. From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Mar 15 23:42:15 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:42:15 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: 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> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> At 04:12 PM 3/15/2007 -0700, Jef Allbright responded to my comment: > > (There is no lack of peer-reviewed papers > > available on the web, in the midst of a deluge of > > insane "psychic" and "astrological" crap. with, inter alia, >UFO fad, ghost-hunting, and the like. I even visited a "holistics >fair" recently and observed many true believers, even some selling >"tachyon water." (I suspect their employer, however was not such a >true believer, but rather a somewhat unethical business person.) > >As I said to Sondre, I seems to me that the evidence for these effects >is little or none, and I weigh that relative to the perceived weight >of evidence for alternate explanations. But there's no point citing "holistics fairs" and "tachyon water" when I've already denounced "psychic" crap as irrelevant. Tell me what's crucially and killingly fallacious in the McMoneagle RV experiments, for example. Or the growing number of controlled "presponse" measurements, which physiological sensors register significant responses not only in advance of a stimulus having been generated but in advance of its being chosen at random from a possible set of stimuli. I would not be surprised if this latter protocol is what will finally establish the reality of some kinds of reverse causality in perception, and will be published in the heavy-duty scientific literature. It's sufficiently simple and elegant that it edges toward resembling classic probes of visual or acoustic acuity. Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Fri Mar 16 00:10:21 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:10:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45F9E06D.9010502@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > Or the growing number of controlled > "presponse" measurements, which physiological sensors register > significant responses not only in advance of a stimulus having been > generated but in advance of its being chosen at random from a > possible set of stimuli. I would not be surprised if this latter > protocol is what will finally establish the reality of some kinds of > reverse causality in perception, and will be published in the > heavy-duty scientific literature. It's sufficiently simple and > elegant that it edges toward resembling classic probes of visual or > acoustic acuity. If the effect size is greater than 5%, and significant at p<0.0001, and a single hypothesis was specified in advance rather than the data being mined afterward, and the study is published in the heavy-duty scientific literature, and nobody finds that the study is a fraud a month later, and the experiment is replicated by a skeptical investigator, my head will officially explode and leave tiny little burning fragments of personal philosophy all over what I used to think was my universe. Thankfully, that will never ever happen. At least, not from this particular possibility. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Mar 16 00:17:47 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:17:47 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/15/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > But there's no point citing "holistics fairs" and "tachyon water" > when I've already denounced "psychic" crap as irrelevant. But my point was that I *have* made the effort to read and investigate parapsychological claims, even to the extent of what borders on what we agree is obvious "crap". This in response to your statements here: > He declined on the grounds that he wouldn't waste his time reading > such rubbish. I now pose the same question to Sondre and Jef. and here: > ...which I assume nobody here watched because everyone knows > in advance that it's all MEGA BULLSHIT. > Tell me > what's crucially and killingly fallacious in the McMoneagle RV > experiments, for example. Damien, when I've said I see "little or no evidence" for psi, it doesn't follow that I believe I can prove that it's false or prove that it doesn't exist. I tried to make it clear that my position on psi is based on relatively probability mass, being a necessarily subjective, but willing assessor of the evidence before me. > Or the growing number of controlled > "presponse" measurements, which physiological sensors register > significant responses not only in advance of a stimulus having been > generated but in advance of its being chosen at random from a > possible set of stimuli. I would not be surprised if this latter > protocol is what will finally establish the reality of some kinds of > reverse causality in perception, and will be published in the > heavy-duty scientific literature. It's sufficiently simple and > elegant that it edges toward resembling classic probes of visual or > acoustic acuity. With the links you provided, I started with the page by Utts and Josephson at http://anson.ucdavis.edu/%7Eutts/azpsi.html: "In one type of experiment, a "target" photograph or video segment is randomly chosen out of a set of four possibilities. A "sender" attempts to transmit it mentally and a "receiver" is then asked to provide an account either verbally or in writing of what she imagines it might be. She is then shown the four possibilities, and selects the one she thinks best matches her perception. By chance alone, a correct match is expected on average one time in four, whereas the experiments typically show the considerably higher success rate of around one in three." These are wonderfully significant results, published since 1996, backed by the prestige of Brian Josephson! Why in the last 10+ years has this not been reproduced to the satisfaction of the scientific community? I will say that my own impression is that Ms. Utts is quite enthusiastic about promoting this field (elsewhere she explains that it has received only two months of resources, proportionate to a century for standard psychology.) I feel compelled to wonder at this point whether this isn't an (unintentional) example of cherry picking results. I'm looking forward to reading more of the references and will get back to you. - Jef From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Mar 16 02:39:06 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:39:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240703151939r105c58aek6c7afc4939a5694b@mail.gmail.com> Is this considered (by this group) to be well-respected enough science and review? http://www.physorg.com/news89542035.html If we can entertain the notion that smell is working via quantum detection, is it so impossible that there might be some weak interactions in the brain that bubble up as precognitive insight? I suggest much of the "training" and "success" that the claimants have could be explained by hypersensitive correlation between subconscious memory and a relatively rare fitness algorithm upon which to draw conclusions. I also agree that it would seem there should be more obvious advantage or exploit on record if such abilities are absolute. I believe the definition of "bullshit" is too encompassing to be 100% free of error. Maybe psi effects only manifest inside the 'rounding error' such that as precision is increased, the effectiveness is minimized - some percentage of the human population tolerate much greater imprecision and are rewarded with unseen influences affecting probability (from good luck to outright miracles) To the more careful consideration of scientific examination, those unseen forces are quantified and the magic is factored out of the equation. Quote (from above link): Whereas the basic chemical image of smell in the past was a "lock and key" model, with different shaped molecules fitting in different receptors, the LCN team explains how the electron tunneling mechanism is more of a "swipe card" model. Similar to a credit card, an odorant molecule would be "read" by receptors that picked up its vibration spectrum, along with matching its shape. "The major other theories of how receptors generate signals that are specific to certain molecules are all ones depending on molecular shape, mainly 'lock and key' mechanisms," said Stoneham. "As we say in our Physical Review Letter, this popular model fails badly for these small scent molecules (similar molecules smell different, differently-shaped molecules smell the same, the actuation process is ill-defined)." EndQuote. * even bullshit serves a purpose as fertilizer From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 16 02:58:37 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:58:37 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <45F9E06D.9010502@pobox.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> <45F9E06D.9010502@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315215129.0237cec0@satx.rr.com> At 05:10 PM 3/15/2007 -0700, Eliezer wrote: >[If stuff happens] my head >will officially explode and leave tiny little burning fragments of >personal philosophy all over what I used to think was my universe. Evidently this sort of extravagant expectation does not attend your reading of quantum experiments designed to send detectable information back into the past (Cramer's current work), or various other delightful and shocking notions of savagely warped spacetime, wormholes, unobserved dark energy, etc etc. My own expectation is akin to Jef's: "it would mean refining or updating, and that is always a *good* thing." This is perhaps fortunate, because I've now encountered sufficient evidence to lead me to consider some psi phenomena well demonstrated. My head did not explode. Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Fri Mar 16 03:06:04 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:06:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315215129.0237cec0@satx.rr.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> <45F9E06D.9010502@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315215129.0237cec0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45FA099C.6050904@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > > Evidently this sort of extravagant expectation does not attend your > reading of quantum experiments designed to send detectable > information back into the past Actually my head would probably explode on that one too, unless there's some reason why the physics don't misbehave in the particular way that would make my head explode. Has to do with something called the Markov property. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 16 03:40:34 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:40:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <45FA099C.6050904@pobox.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> <45F9E06D.9010502@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315215129.0237cec0@satx.rr.com> <45FA099C.6050904@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315223459.0239b8a8@satx.rr.com> At 08:06 PM 3/15/2007 -0700, Eliezer wrote: > > Evidently this sort of extravagant expectation does not attend your > > reading of quantum experiments designed to send detectable > > information back into the past (Cramer's current work), > >Actually my head would probably explode on that one too, unless there's >some reason why the physics don't misbehave in the particular way that >would make my head explode. Has to do with something called the Markov >property. You should rush this insight to Professors Cramer and Utts and save them a lot of wasted effort. Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Fri Mar 16 04:08:02 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:08:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315223459.0239b8a8@satx.rr.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> <45F9E06D.9010502@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315215129.0237cec0@satx.rr.com> <45FA099C.6050904@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315223459.0239b8a8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45FA1822.2000407@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > At 08:06 PM 3/15/2007 -0700, Eliezer wrote: > > >>>Evidently this sort of extravagant expectation does not attend your >>>reading of quantum experiments designed to send detectable >>>information back into the past (Cramer's current work), >> >>Actually my head would probably explode on that one too, unless there's >>some reason why the physics don't misbehave in the particular way that >>would make my head explode. Has to do with something called the Markov >>property. > > > You should rush this insight to Professors Cramer and Utts and save > them a lot of wasted effort. Now *that* would not be proper science. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Fri Mar 16 04:14:43 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:14:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] water on mars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200703160433.l2G4XHOH027309@andromeda.ziaspace.com> {8-] cool! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258989,00.html spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 04:14:25 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <45FA099C.6050904@pobox.com> Message-ID: <400321.34675.qm@web60515.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > Damien Broderick wrote: > > > > Evidently this sort of extravagant expectation > does not attend your > > reading of quantum experiments designed to send > detectable > > information back into the past > > Actually my head would probably explode on that one > too, unless there's > some reason why the physics don't misbehave in the > particular way that > would make my head explode. Has to do with > something called the Markov > property. If it has something to do with Markov property, that would entail your head was already very close to exploding. Quick someone insert control rods into Eliezers ears to stabilize his head. ;) Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 16 04:50:16 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:50:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <45FA1822.2000407@pobox.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> <45F9E06D.9010502@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315215129.0237cec0@satx.rr.com> <45FA099C.6050904@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315223459.0239b8a8@satx.rr.com> <45FA1822.2000407@pobox.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315234213.024e51b8@satx.rr.com> At 09:08 PM 3/15/2007 -0700, Eliezer wrote: > >>Actually my head would probably explode on that one too, unless there's > >>some reason why the physics don't misbehave in the particular way that > >>would make my head explode. Has to do with something called the Markov > >>property. > > > You should rush this insight to Professors Cramer and Utts and save > > them a lot of wasted effort. > >Now *that* would not be proper science. Well, to be other than sardonic for a moment: why not? The groundwork for a lot of academic work is begun in the corridor, the cafeteria, after the colloquium, or in emails. If you feel strongly that considerations of conditional independence (or whatever; you were cryptic) necessarily undermine *in advance* both Cramer's current physics experiment and Utts's statistical analyses, I can't see why you shouldn't mention to them the gaping hole in their apparatuses. If not via personal communication, then perhaps in the form of a brief letter to a scientific or mathematical journal? Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Mar 16 04:51:45 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:51:45 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] WWI stats: A Correction For French Army Causalties Message-ID: <008b01c76787$795c3380$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Sorry---I dragged some stats from memory a few days ago concerning French casualties in WWI. Alas, the older the source, the more unreliable, it seems. For the record, a 2006 book by Peter Turchin, "War and Peace and War" says "In France, every sixth soldier mobilized for war was killed, and more than half were wounded. Only one soldier in three escaped... unscathed in body..." Lee From ben at goertzel.org Fri Mar 16 05:00:06 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:00:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315234213.024e51b8@satx.rr.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> <45F9E06D.9010502@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315215129.0237cec0@satx.rr.com> <45FA099C.6050904@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315223459.0239b8a8@satx.rr.com> <45FA1822.2000407@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315234213.024e51b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45FA2456.2010702@goertzel.org> FYI, my views on psi are not that far off from Damien's. I haven't studied the literature nearly as much as him, but what I have studied leads me to believe that there are probably some real but weak effects here. I am not highly confident of this by any means, but I certainly don't think the topic warrants the brusque dismissals it commonly receives. -- Ben Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:08 PM 3/15/2007 -0700, Eliezer wrote: > > >>>> Actually my head would probably explode on that one too, unless there's >>>> some reason why the physics don't misbehave in the particular way that >>>> would make my head explode. Has to do with something called the Markov >>>> property. >>>> >>> You should rush this insight to Professors Cramer and Utts and save >>> them a lot of wasted effort. >>> >> Now *that* would not be proper science. >> > > Well, to be other than sardonic for a moment: why not? The groundwork > for a lot of academic work is begun in the corridor, the cafeteria, > after the colloquium, or in emails. If you feel strongly that > considerations of conditional independence (or whatever; you were > cryptic) necessarily undermine *in advance* both Cramer's current > physics experiment and Utts's statistical analyses, I can't see why > you shouldn't mention to them the gaping hole in their apparatuses. > If not via personal communication, then perhaps in the form of a > brief letter to a scientific or mathematical journal? > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From sentience at pobox.com Fri Mar 16 05:18:14 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:18:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070315234213.024e51b8@satx.rr.com> 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> <45F9E06D.9010502@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315215129.0237cec0@satx.rr.com> <45FA099C.6050904@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315223459.0239b8a8@satx.rr.com> <45FA1822.2000407@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315234213.024e51b8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45FA2896.6070905@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > > Well, to be other than sardonic for a moment: why not? The groundwork > for a lot of academic work is begun in the corridor, the cafeteria, > after the colloquium, or in emails. If you feel strongly that > considerations of conditional independence (or whatever; you were > cryptic) necessarily undermine *in advance* both Cramer's current > physics experiment and Utts's statistical analyses, I can't see why > you shouldn't mention to them the gaping hole in their apparatuses. > If not via personal communication, then perhaps in the form of a > brief letter to a scientific or mathematical journal? People looking for crazy things don't always find what they're looking for but they often find all sorts of interesting other things; it's why I cheer on the people looking for quantum effects in neurons. The reason my head would explode if someone sent a message into the past is that it would violate the principle that points in spacetime influence only neighboring points in spacetime - that's what I mean by the Markov principle. This seems to be built in an absolute and fundamental sense into the structure of reality. But that's not a physical calculation, just a belief about the character of physical law. And just because my head would explode if it failed doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tested as hard as anyone can. If I wrote a letter like that, it would be an explanation of how important it was to test the theory - not of why the test should not be performed. A novel and interesting test whose negative answer you are absolutely sure of, is a good experiment to perform. I wouldn't want to see some idiot peer reviewer cancelling their grant because they thought only experiments with expected positive results should be performed. Nonetheless, Damien, I'm pretty damned sure that neurons can't predict the future. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Mar 16 05:21:11 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:21:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse References: <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org><04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><20070314091153.GN31912@leitl.org><20070314094120.GQ31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <008e01c7678a$ff1a9b30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis, Eugen, and Jef kicked these ideas around quite a bit, and I'm not prepared to say exactly with whom and how much I agree, but I hope this adds and doesn't detract from the conversation. Eugen had written > > It doesn't matter, you still have to do the computation. Enumerating > > all possible states requires an infinite computer. There is no evidence > > for any such thing. Even if you had such a thing, it is not obvious that > > observers self select the states, magically picking slices out of sequence. and Stathis says > Yes, you have to do the computation, but who decides what counts as > an implementation of a computation/ of a particular Turing machine? > You could make it completely bizarre and counterintuitive, for example > saying that ones and zeroes are represented by particular birds flying to > and from particular trees in a forest. Well, I do feel a need to reassess my views on functionalism, but where do we start, exactly? I think that in our world we ought to recognize that human thoughts are distinctly different and superior to the thoughts of dogs and monkeys, and vastly superior to the "thoughts" of bacteria and amoebas. Panthetic beliefs that mountains and rivers have souls have not withstood modern criticism. So we really should start from a point that declares at the outset dust and rocks to be unfeeling and completely inanimate things. Of course, we occasionally learn astounding information completely at odds with our common sense; for example, we learned that stars were really sun like our own, but very, very far away. However, only the most speculative---and hence the most suspicious---theories suggest that universal omniscience of some sort is going on in Platonic space, or in dust clouds swirling between the galaxies, or in common rocks. Yet for those of us who have mechanist sympathies, it's also pretty clear that the human body is a sort of machine, albeit a biological one. It seems overwhelmingly probable that the laws of physics and chemistry, so far as we know them, apply without exception to animate matter as well as to inanimate matter. Therefore, just as we must accept---contrary to solipsism---that others are conscious, so must we accept the possibility of robotic intelligence. Sure, many will demur. There is no *guarantee* after all, that a robot behaving exactly the same as the rest of your neighbors really is capable of having the same kinds of though processes and feelings as your neighbors. But then, there is no *guarantee* that people of an ethnic group different from yours are conscious either, and we're right back to solipsism. The next move that many of us make is to speculate on what is common among ourselves, intelligent machines, and, to a smaller extent, the higher animals. A number of us have sought refuge in the concept of *computation*. Following Turing, we suppose that our brains accomplish calculations. The latest refuge for me---i.e., where I seem to have been driven by seeing no other way out---is to stipulate that computation must be accompanied by causality: nothing shall be deemed a calculation (I use the words interchangably) which does not follow the usual kind of causal flows that we are familiar with in our daily lives. It is on this common sense basis that I reject notions of universal dovetailers, or notions that dust floating in space, or worse---that entirely arbitrarily made mappings---can in any way be rightly regarded as underlying computation or experience. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Mar 16 05:29:30 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:29:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com><45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <009901c7678c$68a49f50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Finally catching up on this thread, BillK notes > In the Paraguayan War the majority, possibly two thirds, of the > mortality was due to bad food, bad hygiene and cholera. Yes, it may be that we would be more interested in comparisons that didn't include this component. After all, it was unlikely to be a factor in the very small scale conflicts back in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness. > But apart from that point, I feel that Keith is straining to fit every > war into his theory. EP has a lot going for it, but it doesn't explain > *every* war. I think that there is little doubt that Keith is right about a very large percentage of wars. I would submit that only in recent history have there been counter-examples, and those recent escapades bring in any number of random phenomena from the whims of Emperors and mad dictators, to the sheer economics of plunder. Lee > In 1864 Paraguay was a land-locked country under a ruthless > dictatorship, where the dictator was rumoured to own up to half the > land. The country was *under-populated*, if anything, out-numbered > about ten to one by its neighbours. > > "Landlocked, isolated, and underpopulated, Paraguay structured its > economy around a centrally administered agricultural sector, extensive > cattle grazing, and inefficient shipbuilding and textile industries". > > The dictator Lopez had taken over from his father just two years > before and was a very inexperienced politician. (That's generous, - > some said he was crazy - he certainly was mad by the end of the war). > Everybody in the country worked for the Lopez family, or they starved. > The country didn't go to war - Lopez did. > > Read about the war - the whole thing was a total shambles. > > > > > BillK From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Mar 16 06:18:01 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:18:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Soviet Economy (was War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com><45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070314124341.03e52d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5A6E7A25-773F-4914-83E0-DC495ABE762C@freeshell.org> Message-ID: <00a601c76793$76674000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Brent writes > Case in point is the Cold War, which was not won by guns, but rather > by forcing/tricking the Soviets into breaking their economy. Today many argue that the Soviet economy would have failed anyway, just that the "trickery" to which you refer made it happen sooner rather than later. Mancur Olson, in his fine book "Power and Prosperity" explains that Soviet Communism "sort of" worked under Stalin. By his severe methods he indeed was able to extract incredible amounts of work out of the people. (The basic idea went along these lines: if you worked just your solid shift, you'd end up with barely enough to live on. Work an hour or two more, and your pay per hour rises accordingly. Work to the point of being a Stanhanovite, and you make quite a decent living.) But Stalin's inheritors lacked the ruthlessness to keep it going. Soon managers got to know each other and become friends, and start supporting each others stories of increased production. Stalin eliminated this kind of familiarity with purges of entire mangement classes. Lee From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Fri Mar 16 07:41:37 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:41:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314124341.03e52d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5A6E7A25-773F-4914-83E0-DC495ABE762C@freeshell.org> Message-ID: <45FA4A31.1070905@thomasoliver.net> Brent Neal wrote: >[...] > >There is a case to be made that we've >found that the most cost-effective way to engage in warfare now is >economic, not militarily. Case in point is the Cold War, which was >not won by guns, but rather by forcing/tricking the Soviets into >breaking their economy. I've seen reasonable arguments that the trade/ >currency imbalance between the US and China is such a conflict. From >the aforementioned game-theory standpoint, economic war makes sense >for the modern world, because it maximizes the return on investment. > Brent, I think Neal Stephenson might agree with you. In "Diamond Age" the administration of justice gets carried out on solely economic considerations. Politics appears reduced to tribal style preferences and the magnitude of a crime gets judged on economy-wide consequences. Unproductive behavior coupled with habitual counterproductive actions gets judged worthy of a death sentence. From this view (economic stats trumping political concerns) I think one could say that waging political war might be considered a kind of declaration of bankruptcy. So now do we see peace and wealth as positive correlates -- and, conversely, war and political power? -- Thomas From pgptag at gmail.com Fri Mar 16 08:07:35 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:07:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] First steps to neural interfacing for consumers Message-ID: <470a3c520703160107w100e20e5s556ddf5713aa140a@mail.gmail.com> http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/first_steps_to_neural_interfacing_for_consumers/ The Economist has a good article on applications of Brain to Computer Interfacing to computer games: "the promises of, respectively, Emotiv Systems and NeuroSky, two young companies based in California, that plan to transport the measurement of brain waves from the medical sphere into the realm of computer games. If all goes well, their first products should be on the market next year. People will then be able to tell a computer what they want it to do just by thinking about it". "First applications are most likely to be single-player computer games running on machines such as Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PlayStation 3. In the longer term, though, he thinks the system will be ideal for controlling avatars (the visual representations of players) in multiplayer virtual worlds such as Second Life". Before becoming available to Second Life users, the new neural interfaces might be available to PlayStation 3 owners in Sony's forthcoming new service, Home, that puts users into a real-time, networked 3D community, where they can interact, join online games, communicate, share content and even build and show off their own personal spaces. Home will be available this fall as a free download from the PlayStation Store.. Home looks impressive: Second Life with the graphic quality of a console videogame. Take a look here and imagine moving in this world and interacting with things by thought. Add fullly imemrsive headset displays? wow! The first applications of neural interfacing have been in the medical field. See for example the recent breakthroughs of Cyberkinetics, whose technology used in medical pilot projects has permitted severely disabled patients interacting with computers by thought. Now this technology is finding its way to the consumer market. I am not surprised at all to see that the first consumer applications of neural interfacing are developed for the computer gaming industry. In the computer gaming market there is a lot of money and there will be even more money, and game companies are able to attract very bright and creative people everywhere. I am more and more persuaded that other transhumanist holy grails, such as conscious artificial intelligence, will be first developed by the computer gaming industry. >From the Emotiv website: "Our mission is to create the ultimate interface for the next-generation of man-machine interaction, by evolving the interaction between human beings and electronic devices beyond the limits of conscious interface. Emotiv is creating technologies that allow machines to take both conscious and non-conscious inputs directly from your mind". From the NeuroSky website: "Brainwaves have been used in medical research and therapy for years. We're bringing it to the consumer world". So we will soon be able to think our way in Home and Second Life. If a computer can read information from our brains, it won't be long before it can also write information directly to our brains and very fast: two way neural interfaces that will make computer screens and headsets obsolete, a Second Life that goes directly to the brain bypassing the eyes. And when our virtual environments will contain artificial intelligences, perhaps smarter than us, we will be able to communicate with them at the speed of thought. Let's call things by their name: these first baby steps to neural interfacing for consumers will lead to *the* transhumanist Holy Grail: mind uploading, the transfer of human consciousness out of the brain into much higher performance supports, where we will be able to interact and merge with our AI mind children. From scerir at libero.it Fri Mar 16 09:56:05 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:56:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 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> Message-ID: <001301c767b1$6c884250$56961f97@archimede> There are to my knowledge, absolutely no scientific research and tests that validates that any person have or have had, any extraordinary abilities. If it where the case, we would have to rewrite our understanding of the world and the universe. /Sondre Speaking about 'our understanding of the world and the universe' (and not about ESP, at least not necessarily about ESP) it is perhaps interesting to point out an unexpected quote by K.Godel. He thought - as J.Barrow reported - that intuition, by which we can see truths of mathematics and science, was a tool that would one day be valued just as formally and reverently as logic itself. 'I don't see any reason why we should have less confidence in this kind of perception, i.e., in mathematical intuition, than in sense perception, which induces us to build up physical theories and to expect that future sense perceptions will agree with them and, moreover, to believe that a question not decidable now has meaning and may be decided in the future.' -K.Godel, 'What is Cantor's Continuum Problem?', Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. P.Benacerraf & H. Putnam, p. 483, (year and publisher unknown). All that (I mean 'our difficult understanding' and not necessarily the ESP) may have its roots in the very uncertain relations among information, (platonic) scientific laws, and matter. P.C.W.Davies wrote about that recently here http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703041 . Note also that some no-go theorems and principles seem to be contextual, or dependent on the physical landscape. See, in example, the Malament-Hogarth spacetime, and its implications. From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Mar 16 15:16:28 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:16:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Ends Brain Reverse Engineering Project In-Reply-To: <22360fa10703160810l23390dc9sb7ae07da34c1b016@mail.gmail.com> References: <22360fa10703160810l23390dc9sb7ae07da34c1b016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: FYI, - Jef An article in the New Jersey Star-Ledgersays DARPA has "quietly killed" their project to reverse engineering the human brain. The project, known as Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures (BICA), had been compared to other very difficult projects such as the atomic bomb or moon landing. DARPA has denied requests to explain why they dropped the project and neuroscientists who were involved said, "All we know is it's dead". The first phase was a $9.5 million project planning stage. The cancelled phase 2 was to be a $50-100 million attempt to design "psychologically-based and neurobiology-based cognitive architectures" based on the human brain. There is speculation that DARPA concluded phase 2 was simply to ambitious. For more detailed information see DARPA's BICA Information Pamplhlet (PDF format) or the reports from Phase 1 participants. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 16 15:26:08 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:26:08 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Ends Brain Reverse Engineering Project In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10703160810l23390dc9sb7ae07da34c1b016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070316152608.GO31912@leitl.org> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:16:28AM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > cognitive architectures" based on the human brain. There is > speculation that DARPA concluded phase 2 was simply to ambitious. For For that kind of a budget -- absolutely. The Manhattan project consumed a considerable fraction of the then-GNP. There's no way to expect not spending a few percent of today's GNP over the course of a decade or a couple and succeeding. Of course one could just wait until the natural course of developments drops you the ripe fruit into your lap, for free. Eventually it will, but other guys will have been there first. Human-level AI in is the mother of all disruptive technologies. > more detailed information see DARPA's [3]BICA Information Pamplhlet > (PDF format) or the [4]reports from Phase 1 participants. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Fri Mar 16 15:52:55 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:52:55 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Ends Brain Reverse Engineering Project In-Reply-To: <20070316152608.GO31912@leitl.org> References: <22360fa10703160810l23390dc9sb7ae07da34c1b016@mail.gmail.com> <20070316152608.GO31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <5366105b0703160852n15e5ec4eo372158ac781a3c37@mail.gmail.com> 1051 Friday, 16 March 2007 On 3/16/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:16:28AM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > cognitive architectures" based on the human brain. There is > > speculation that DARPA concluded phase 2 was simply to ambitious. For > > For that kind of a budget -- absolutely. The Manhattan project > consumed a considerable fraction of the then-GNP. There's no way > to expect not spending a few percent of today's GNP over the course > of a decade or a couple and succeeding. > Or the project might have moved off-the-books. That would surprise me very much, but stranger things have happened. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From ben at goertzel.org Fri Mar 16 16:11:17 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:11:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] [agi] DARPA Ends Brain Reverse Engineering Project In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10703160810l23390dc9sb7ae07da34c1b016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45FAC1A5.2010301@goertzel.org> Well, Novamente LLC submitted a proposal to this that was rejected. My impression was that most of the recipients of the BICA funding did not have credible AGI approaches, and many were in fact relatively new to the AGI problem. The recipients were by and large smart scientists with interesting ideas, but I don't think DARPA did a tremendously good job of picking out projects with deep and relatively mature AGI designs. So, I am not too surprised by this conclusion... -- Ben Jef Allbright wrote: > FYI, > - Jef > > > An article in the New Jersey Star-Ledger > > says DARPA has "quietly killed" their project to reverse engineering > the human brain. The project, known as Biologically Inspired Cognitive > Architectures > (BICA), had been compared to other very difficult projects such as the > atomic bomb or moon landing. DARPA has denied requests to explain why > they dropped the project and neuroscientists who were involved said, > "All we know is it's dead". The first phase was a $9.5 million project > planning stage. The cancelled phase 2 was to be a $50-100 million > attempt to design "psychologically-based and neurobiology-based > cognitive architectures" based on the human brain. There is > speculation that DARPA concluded phase 2 was simply to ambitious. For > more detailed information see DARPA's BICA Information Pamplhlet > (PDF format) or the > reports from Phase 1 participants > . > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303 From ben at goertzel.org Fri Mar 16 16:12:05 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:12:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Ends Brain Reverse Engineering Project In-Reply-To: <20070316152608.GO31912@leitl.org> References: <22360fa10703160810l23390dc9sb7ae07da34c1b016@mail.gmail.com> <20070316152608.GO31912@leitl.org> Message-ID: <45FAC1D5.9060602@goertzel.org> Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 08:16:28AM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > > >> cognitive architectures" based on the human brain. There is >> speculation that DARPA concluded phase 2 was simply to ambitious. For >> > > For that kind of a budget -- absolutely. IMO, the problem was not the budget, but the selection of who to fund ;-) From jonkc at att.net Fri Mar 16 17:40:52 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:40:52 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com><4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > There is no lack of peer-reviewed papers > available on the web Well yea that's true, but then you can find anything on the web. A crappy researcher you've never heard of can indeed find a peer, that is, another crappy researcher you've also never heard of, to confirm his original crappy work. > I suppose I might as well throw in a few > pointers [blah blah] Why on Earth would you do that? If I were to follow your links and read this stuff it would take hours, be very unpleasant, and at the end of the day I would not be one bit wiser than I am right now because I would have no way of knowing if the ASCII sequence I observed had any relationship with how the universe operated or if it was just pulp fiction. It's just a website, that's it, a website; there is no chain of trust that would justify me rethinking my fundamental ideas on how things work. I don't know if he's a good experimenter or a bad one, I don't know if his data is correct or made up, I don't know if the experiment was set up as he said it was, I don't know if it was performed as he said it was, I don't even know if he did any experiment at all. I do know the man knows how to type, but that's not enough to alter my worldview. And I didn't see the TV show (a source almost as reliable as the web) but I'll tell you one thing, if I could foretell the future I sure as hell wouldn't be wasting my time making documentaries about myself, valuable time that I could be spending with my stockbroker and bookie. John K Clark From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 16 18:31:36 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:31:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <002701c766a2$8dcd3700$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:05:35 -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > War and the human propensity to make babies are parts of the same > picture. Of course everything about human culture is related to just about everything else about human culture, but I'd really like to find a better statistic than global-war-per-capita, one that would better isolate the historical human propensity to make or fall victim to war, where war is defined in the post hunter-gatherer sense (i.e., wars orchestrated by large and relatively stable societies with some kind of geo-political status). One such statistic might be 'wars-in-progress-per-year-per-war-capable-nation-state'. Has that statistic declined consistently and substantially over, say, the last 5000 years? I would certainly guess it has but then on the other hand I don't believe I've ever seen statistics that quantify or prove it. By the way, I subscribe to Foreign Policy magazine, and you and others here might be interested to know that the March/April edition contains an editorial related to war and EP by our own Robin Hanson (Robin's name seems to turn up everywhere :). The editorial concerns the claim by Kahneman and Renshon that cognitive distortions may be supporting hawks over doves, and that nations or their political leaders may be inclined to over-estimate the threats posed by potential enemy states. Robin argues it would be a mistake to assume necessarily that the supposed bias is maladaptive. -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Mar 16 18:51:52 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:51:52 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/15/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Or the growing number of controlled > > "presponse" measurements, which physiological sensors register > > significant responses not only in advance of a stimulus having been > > generated but in advance of its being chosen at random from a > > possible set of stimuli. I would not be surprised if this latter > > protocol is what will finally establish the reality of some kinds of > > reverse causality in perception, and will be published in the > > heavy-duty scientific literature. It's sufficiently simple and > > elegant that it edges toward resembling classic probes of visual or > > acoustic acuity. > > With the links you provided, I started with the page by Utts and > Josephson at http://anson.ucdavis.edu/%7Eutts/azpsi.html: > > "In one type of experiment, a "target" photograph or video segment is > randomly chosen out of a set of four possibilities. A "sender" > attempts to transmit it mentally and a "receiver" is then asked to > provide an account either verbally or in writing of what she imagines > it might be. She is then shown the four possibilities, and selects the > one she thinks best matches her perception. By chance alone, a correct > match is expected on average one time in four, whereas the experiments > typically show the considerably higher success rate of around one in > three." > > These are /wonderfully/ significant results, published since 1996, > backed by the prestige of Brian Josephson! Why in the last 10+ years > has this not been reproduced to the satisfaction of the scientific > community? I will say that my own impression is that Ms. Utts is > quite enthusiastic about promoting this field (elsewhere she explains > that it has received only two months of resources, proportionate to a > century for standard psychology.) I feel compelled to wonder at this > point whether this isn't an (unintentional) example of cherry picking > results. > > I'm looking forward to reading more of the references and will get back to you. Damien, I'm getting back to you after spending a few hours last night refreshing memories of this field since my last spelunking a few years ago. I'm afraid the illumination in those passages hasn't improved, while sadly I find I'm navigating with slightly greater certainty than last time due to lack of no new surprises. As I re-read about May, Utts, Radin, Puthoff, Geller, Boundary Institute, Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman, the Stargate program, PEAR, and the various other scientific and pseudo-scientific conferences and studies on parapsychological phenomena, I see certain personalities and their (quite understandable) will to believe overshadowing any evidence. Edwin May's papers are perhaps the most credible in appearance, (especially in contrast to those of some of his associates, one of whom reminds me of PT Barnum in a lab coat) but his writing, some of it emotional, show the marks of a true believer who will continue to do whatever he can to prove what he already believes. His papers on anticipatory galvanic skin response (1993, 1995) were interesting and while he acknowledged their weakness as retrospective analysis, I'm left wondering about the fate of the anticipated prospective experiments? After the Stargate program was terminated it seems he joined Radin at the Boundary Institute and continued to publish additional interesting but non-conclusive papers. But in over ten years couldn't he or someone else follow up on the ns-GSR paper that seemed so promising?? Some of these people do appear to attempt good experimental protocol, but many of those around them (some who began as believers but eventually convinced themselves otherwise) observe a multitude of failures to account for bias and communication paths between experimenters and subjects. Indeed, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that any and all scientific experiments are tainted to some small degree due to the ultimately subjective nature of the enterprise? So, when believers go looking for subtle effects, they are likely to find them, with just the quirky, unrepeatable, subjective nature which they have come to believe characterizes their subject. What should we think of a putative effect that diminishes in proportion to experimental rigor? I do respect those who strive to uncover subtle anomalous effects -- as I've said, this promotes the good by refining our understanding of our world, but I'm afraid that when I look at this field, I see hints that something subtle could just possibly exist, swamped by an overwhelming array of unscientific (but quite understandable) human factors. I am looking forward to reading your forthcoming book (and I'm halfway through that enjoyable collection of your short stories - thanks!) - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Mar 16 18:56:22 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:56:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Resend due to an ugly error in my previous text. - Jef On 3/16/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 3/15/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > > Or the growing number of controlled > > > "presponse" measurements, which physiological sensors register > > > significant responses not only in advance of a stimulus having been > > > generated but in advance of its being chosen at random from a > > > possible set of stimuli. I would not be surprised if this latter > > > protocol is what will finally establish the reality of some kinds of > > > reverse causality in perception, and will be published in the > > > heavy-duty scientific literature. It's sufficiently simple and > > > elegant that it edges toward resembling classic probes of visual or > > > acoustic acuity. > > > > With the links you provided, I started with the page by Utts and > > Josephson at http://anson.ucdavis.edu/%7Eutts/azpsi.html: > > > > "In one type of experiment, a "target" photograph or video segment is > > randomly chosen out of a set of four possibilities. A "sender" > > attempts to transmit it mentally and a "receiver" is then asked to > > provide an account either verbally or in writing of what she imagines > > it might be. She is then shown the four possibilities, and selects the > > one she thinks best matches her perception. By chance alone, a correct > > match is expected on average one time in four, whereas the experiments > > typically show the considerably higher success rate of around one in > > three." > > > > These are /wonderfully/ significant results, published since 1996, > > backed by the prestige of Brian Josephson! Why in the last 10+ years > > has this not been reproduced to the satisfaction of the scientific > > community? I will say that my own impression is that Ms. Utts is > > quite enthusiastic about promoting this field (elsewhere she explains > > that it has received only two months of resources, proportionate to a > > century for standard psychology.) I feel compelled to wonder at this > > point whether this isn't an (unintentional) example of cherry picking > > results. > > > > I'm looking forward to reading more of the references and will get back to you. > > Damien, I'm getting back to you after spending a few hours last night > refreshing memories of this field since my last spelunking a few years > ago. I'm afraid the illumination in those passages hasn't improved, > while sadly I find I'm navigating with slightly greater certainty than > last time due to lack of new surprises. > > As I re-read about May, Utts, Radin, Puthoff, Geller, Boundary > Institute, Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman, the Stargate program, PEAR, > and the various other scientific and pseudo-scientific conferences and > studies on parapsychological phenomena, I see certain personalities > and their (quite understandable) will to believe overshadowing any > evidence. > > Edwin May's papers are perhaps the most credible in appearance, > (especially in contrast to those of some of his associates, one of > whom reminds me of PT Barnum in a lab coat) but his writing, some of > it emotional, show the marks of a true believer who will continue to > do whatever he can to prove what he already believes. His papers on > anticipatory galvanic skin response (1993, 1995) were interesting and > while he acknowledged their weakness as retrospective analysis, I'm > left wondering about the fate of the anticipated prospective > experiments? After the Stargate program was terminated it seems he > joined Radin at the Boundary Institute and continued to publish > additional interesting but non-conclusive papers. But in over ten > years couldn't he or someone else follow up on the ns-GSR paper that > seemed so promising?? > > Some of these people do appear to attempt good experimental protocol, > but many of those around them (some who began as believers but > eventually convinced themselves otherwise) observe a multitude of > failures to account for bias and communication paths between > experimenters and subjects. > > Indeed, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that any and all scientific > experiments are tainted to some small degree due to the ultimately > subjective nature of the enterprise? So, when believers go looking > for subtle effects, they are likely to find them, with just the > quirky, unrepeatable, subjective nature which they have come to > believe characterizes their subject. What should we think of a > putative effect that diminishes in proportion to experimental rigor? > > I do respect those who strive to uncover subtle anomalous effects -- > as I've said, this promotes the good by refining our understanding of > our world, but I'm afraid that when I look at this field, I see hints > that something subtle could just possibly exist, swamped by an > overwhelming array of unscientific (but quite understandable) human > factors. > > I am looking forward to reading your forthcoming book (and I'm halfway > through that enjoyable collection of your short stories - thanks!) > > - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 16 19:20:27 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:20:27 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. In-Reply-To: <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> At 01:40 PM 3/16/2007 -0400, John K Clark wrote: >If I were to follow your links and read this >stuff it would take hours, be very unpleasant, and at the end of the day I >would not be one bit wiser than I am right now John, I regard you as a pal (although we've never met except via electrons), and a smart, sarcastic and funny guy. But on this topic I no longer care what you think. I understand your attitude; it's a very safe and cautious one that in many instances optimizes available time and energy investment. It also inevitably misses the boat with drastic novelties. Since I and some others on the list enjoy playing with such off the wall possibilities (which is presumably why we mostly also like thinking about other topics such as MNT, AI, cryonics, radical life extension, astrobiology, and other "sciences without content (yet)" reviled by most sensible, cautious people), how about you just leave us to our follies and we'll cease prodding you with evidence you won't look at. (I immediately seem to breach that condition, below, but I'm speaking to others now.) >I'll tell you one thing, if I could foretell the future I sure as hell >wouldn't be wasting my time making documentaries about myself, >valuable time that I could be spending with my stockbroker and bookie. I understand there are people who do that. But my own interest in psi (at this point, as noted, I'm writing to anyone else who's still gives a shit) is closer to the intrigued bafflement of people looking at odd behavior like prodigious autistic calculation or, on a different scale, detection of neutralinos. Obviously if psi were the sort of thing anyone could turn into an engineering application, it would have been done already. That tells us something about it, but sheds no direct light on results such as the presentiment data. This sort of data is not interesting to John, but it did intrigue Nobel laureate Kary B. Mullis (Polymerase Chain Reaction), who sat in Dean Radin's lab and saw aggregated presponse data he'd just generated himself ( http://discovermagazine.com/web-exclusives/25-greatest-science-books-intro/ ). Once again--this is not an argument from Authority (I could only lose, at the moment, attempting such a move); it's an indication that you don't have to be a fool to accept the available evidence. I now await the character assassination this will attract to Mullis, as it has already to Josephson. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 16 19:29:25 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:29:25 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: 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> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315183003.023170f8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070316142353.022c6a18@satx.rr.com> At 11:51 AM 3/16/2007 -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: >Edwin May's papers... on >anticipatory galvanic skin response (1993, 1995) were interesting and >while he acknowledged their weakness as retrospective analysis, I'm >left wondering about the fate of the anticipated prospective >experiments? After the Stargate program was terminated it seems he >joined Radin at the Boundary Institute and continued to publish >additional interesting but non-conclusive papers. But in over ten >years couldn't he or someone else follow up on the ns-GSR paper that >seemed so promising?? There have been a number of papers doing exactly that (sometimes with improved, more sensitive methods), by May and Spottiswoode, by Bierman, and by others, including the 2005 report I url'd yesterday, iirc: www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/MPZjacm.pdf Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Mar 16 19:39:11 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:39:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> 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> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/16/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > sort of data is not interesting to John, but it did intrigue Nobel > laureate Kary B. Mullis (Polymerase Chain Reaction), who sat in Dean > Radin's lab and saw aggregated presponse data he'd just generated > himself ( > http://discovermagazine.com/web-exclusives/25-greatest-science-books-intro/ > ). Once again--this is not an argument from Authority (I could only > lose, at the moment, attempting such a move); it's an indication that > you don't have to be a fool to accept the available evidence. I now > await the character assassination this will attract to Mullis, as it > has already to Josephson. The link gives a 404 Page Not Found, although the URL is correct according to this page: Did Mullis already talk with Josephson and decide to pull it? ;-) Here's a cached copy: - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Mar 16 19:54:32 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:54:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] MIT Media Lab: h2.0 Message-ID: FYI, - Jef The program will focus on the Media Lab's sweeping new research initiatives for augmenting mental and physical capability to vastly improve the quality of human life. Presenters will explore how today's?and tomorrow's?advances will seamlessly interact with humans, giving us a glimpse into a future where all humans will integrate with technology to heighten our cognition, emotional acuity, perception, and physical capabilities. hosts JOHN HOCKENBERRY award-winning journalist; distinguished Media Lab fellow HUGH HERR NEC Career Development Professor, MIT Media Lab keynote OLIVER SACKS From jef at jefallbright.net Fri Mar 16 21:06:58 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:06:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Gapminder acquired by Google Message-ID: Whohoo! We can expect yummy Google data dressed up in very sexy Gapminder style! Like most (geek) males, I'm very visual(ization) oriented. "...we are excited to announce that we have acquired Gapminder's Trendalyzer software, and we welcome the Trendalyzer team to Google. Trendalyzer generates moving graphics and other novel effects in the display of facts, figures, and statistics in presentations. In its nimble hands, Trendalyzer views development data?such as regional income distribution or trends in global health?as literally a world of opportunity. Like Google, Gapminder strives to make information more useful, and Trendalyzer will improve any function or application in which data might be better visualized." From pharos at gmail.com Fri Mar 16 21:42:14 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:42:14 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> 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> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/16/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > This sort of data is not interesting to John, but it did intrigue Nobel > laureate Kary B. Mullis (Polymerase Chain Reaction), who sat in Dean > Radin's lab and saw aggregated presponse data he'd just generated > himself ( > http://discovermagazine.com/web-exclusives/25-greatest-science-books-intro/ > ). Once again--this is not an argument from Authority (I could only > lose, at the moment, attempting such a move); it's an indication that > you don't have to be a fool to accept the available evidence. I now > await the character assassination this will attract to Mullis, as it > has already to Josephson. > Oh dear. Please don't quote Mullis as a reference. No need for a character assassination. He does it himself. He is a nut case and proud of it. He has written an autobiography boasting about his strange adventures and beliefs. Dancing Naked in the Mind Field by Kary Mullis where he records: He thought OJ Simpson was innocent belief in astrology thought he was saved by an astral traveller (via astral projection) convinced he was abducted by aliens believes HIV does not cause AIDS human pollution does not cause global warming CFCs don't ruin the ozone layer and, of course, does telepathy and esp etc. Also see where the controversy about his Nobel prize is discussed. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 16 22:36:39 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:36:39 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mullis In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070316172609.02275dc8@satx.rr.com> At 09:42 PM 3/16/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: >On 3/16/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > I now > > await the character assassination this will attract to Mullis, as it > > has already to Josephson. > >Oh dear. Please don't quote Mullis as a reference. > >No need for a character assassination. He does it himself. My comment was, of course, ever so faintly tongue in cheek. On the other hand, common attacks on Mullis are not the kind that would necessarily be prized (as it were) on this list: >He thought OJ Simpson was innocent Wikipedia glosses this: Oh no! Not *controlled substances*! You can see what kind of deranged lunatic this must be. (I, naturally, have myself very rarely inhaled.) >Also see > >where the controversy about his Nobel prize is discussed. He had a great idea. Some other people had inklings of the great idea too. Boo hoo. His team didn't get to share the prize. Well, I have sympathy for that view, being a low communitarian anarchist rather than a studly libertarian like many on this list, but hey, it's the way the Nobel Prize was set up. Boo hoo. Bill makes some good points. But: This guy has had some odd experiences and some odd ideas. One side-consequence of being a creative genius. Damien Broderick From brentn at freeshell.org Sat Mar 17 00:37:00 2007 From: brentn at freeshell.org (Brent Neal) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:37:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: <45FA4A31.1070905@thomasoliver.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314124341.03e52d50@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5A6E7A25-773F-4914-83E0-DC495ABE762C@freeshell.org> <45FA4A31.1070905@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <994F13FB-CA77-4FC2-A4A4-18E35895547D@freeshell.org> On Mar 16, 2007, at 3:41, Thomas wrote: >> > Brent, I think Neal Stephenson might agree with you. In "Diamond Age" > the administration of justice gets carried out on solely economic > considerations. Politics appears reduced to tribal style preferences > and the magnitude of a crime gets judged on economy-wide consequences. > Unproductive behavior coupled with habitual counterproductive actions > gets judged worthy of a death sentence. > Having read both Diamond Age and Snow Crash some time back, undoubtedly that influenced my opinion. I think that politics, at least in the US and Europe, resembles that tribalism that you speak of; however, I think that the primary role of politics is a consensus institution for shaping business climate. You buy enough influence to get what you need. > From this view (economic stats trumping political concerns) I > think one > could say that waging political war might be considered a kind of > declaration of bankruptcy. Or following Clausewitz, war is economics by other means? :) -- Brent Neal Geek of all Trades http://brentn.freeshell.org "Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri Mar 16 21:59:29 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:59:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 06:42 PM 3/15/2007 +0000, Billk wrote: >On 3/15/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > Dictators who didn't consider the opinion and well being of their subjects > > at all were usually deposed unless they died from other causes first. > > >My instant reaction was 'Nonsense!'. ;) Google: 13,800 for defenestration dictator. Google: 438,000 for deposed dictator I my lifetime South American countries went through dictators like changing underwear. >Tell that to Mugabe's people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe It's not that simple a story. A high fraction of the problems of Zimbabwe are structural. High population growth fed by mechanized agriculture followed by a reversion to low tech farming is a recipe for starvation. You know the saying "white men can't jump"? The corollary is "____ men can't farm" when farming is of the tightly managed and highly mechanized western culture variety. In fact, in much of that part of the world, farming is strictly women's work. >Most cruel leaders are not deposed by internal rebellion because >opponents are ruthlessly executed. If they don't die of old age, it is >attack from the outside that defeats them. > >Then I thought, maybe Keith has heard about different cruel dictators to me. > >Stalin? A hero to this day to a substantial number of older Russians. >Hitler? Worshiped by the Germans at one time. >Mussolini? same >Saddam Hussein? same >Jean-Bertrand Aristide? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bertrand_Aristide I don't know why you cite him. "Dictator" does not seem to fit. Could you explain? snip >Alexander didn't march across Europe because his local population >wanted more food. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great He didn't march that direction at all, though he might have had he lived long enough. Up to the days of railroad transportation, food was mostly a local problem. You could only improve the food supply per person by having fewer "persons." Thus wars that "threw away" a chunk of the population improved the food supply per person for those left. Keith Henson From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 04:37:58 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:37:58 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 3/17/07, Keith Henson wrote: >Jean-Bertrand Aristide? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bertrand_Aristide > > I don't know why you cite him. "Dictator" does not seem to fit. Could > you > explain? Maybe BillK was thinking of Papa Doc Duvalier, Haiti's "President for Life, Maximum Chief of the Revolution, Apostle of National Unity, Benefactor of the Poor, Patron of Commerce and Industry and Electrifier of Souls". Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 05:31:08 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:31:08 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Ends Brain Reverse Engineering Project In-Reply-To: <45FAC1D5.9060602@goertzel.org> References: <22360fa10703160810l23390dc9sb7ae07da34c1b016@mail.gmail.com> <20070316152608.GO31912@leitl.org> <45FAC1D5.9060602@goertzel.org> Message-ID: Quoting from the brief announcement, "map cognitive functions to neurological structures, and design psychologically-based and neurobiologically-based cognitive architectures." I would be interested in whether anyone really *knows* what is going on in this area (really)? Unlike, say the visual processing system, or the auditory processing system (which Ray touched on in TSIN), is the cognitive processing system currently understood at all? I don't follow this field, so I have no idea whether neuroarchitectural understanding (perhaps via fMRI) has reached the point where we have tied our external understanding of what is going on to precise biological architectures (which IMO is what they were going after). The best working understanding I have is something along the lines of Calvin's explanation of local groups of neurons representing patterns or thought (ideas or memes if you will), some copying and natural selection taking place, with "intelligence" being some combination as to numbers of simultaneous patterns which can be "held onto" at sub-conscious level combined with some "wisdom" as to which of those patterns individually or when combined would serve to produce an interesting or meaningful result. I do not put the development of AGI or FAI in the same category as understanding "functional mapping onto neurological structures" (without which neurobiologically-based cognitive architectures would be impossible). So was the problem that we simply do not have the tools yet (e.g. fMRI resolution, or fine scale mapping of dendrite trees at billion neuron level?) to accomplish stated goals of the project? And were most of the proposals directed at solving problems of emulating how various researchers "think" the brain should work -- rather than how the brain actually works? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Mar 17 11:41:30 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 07:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <35692.72.236.102.71.1174131690.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > I my lifetime South American countries went through dictators like changing > underwear. > > I grew up hearing the term "banana republic" - and right now it seems much of Africa more fits that description than South America. But maybe it's just my news source! The name of the game is Power. If these guys were "benevolent dictators" it might be a bit different, but most are not. They remind me of two year olds crossed with grammar school playground bullies - all armed with the latest highpower weapons. Very distressing. Regards, MB From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 12:22:29 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:22:29 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 3/16/07, Keith Henson wrote: > At 06:42 PM 3/15/2007 +0000, Billk wrote: > >Alexander didn't march across Europe because his local population > >wanted more food. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great > > He didn't march that direction at all, though he might have had he lived > long enough. > > Up to the days of railroad transportation, food was mostly a local > problem. You could only improve the food supply per person by having fewer > "persons." Thus wars that "threw away" a chunk of the population improved > the food supply per person for those left. > Yes. Replace Europe with 'the known world'. :) "Before his death, Alexander had already made plans to also turn west and conquer Europe. He also wanted to continue his march eastwards in order to find the end of the world, since his boyhood tutor Aristotle told him tales about where the land ends and the Great Outer Sea begins." I don't see how you can claim reasonably that Alexander's wars of conquest were due to population pressure. Where an absolute ruler with a strong army and police force exists, the opinion of the mass of the population doesn't much matter. Certainly it is easier if the great leader can manipulate public opinion to worship him and follow his orders without argument. But if necessary harsher measures can enforce his control. Opposition leaders can be killed. Large populations can be exterminated (Stalin). If the great leader says join the army and conquer the world, that's what they will do. It's not EP pressure making them do it. Hunter-gather tribes and democratic groups or countries may vote whether or not to go to war, and population pressure will be one of the factors that will affect their decision. The large oil reserves in the next country (or the gold mines) will also be a factor to be considered (as well as many other factors). But for most of human history, the absolute ruler decided and the population did as they were told. I think the problem is that you are looking for an absolute that doesn't exist in human affairs. *All* wars don't start because of population pressure. Some do. Wars are not even always called wars. Dictators are not always called dictators. There are multiple reasons for everything, including wars. Population pressure is always a factor. In some circumstances it will be the overwhelming factor that outweighs everything else, but not always. BillK From ben at goertzel.org Sat Mar 17 13:50:41 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:50:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Ends Brain Reverse Engineering Project In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10703160810l23390dc9sb7ae07da34c1b016@mail.gmail.com> <20070316152608.GO31912@leitl.org> <45FAC1D5.9060602@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <45FBF231.1070600@goertzel.org> The one team I know well, that was funded under this project, was building more of a cognitive science inspired AI architecture than a detailed brain emulation. They may not have been representative though. But note the wishy washy language of "biologically INSPIRED cognitive architectures." (BICA) It's sorta like then a TV show claims to be "Inspired by actual events." This is weaker than "Based on a true story" ;-p We certain don't have the brain mapping tools to understand how the brain works in any detail at this point. We don't know how the brain represents the concept of "cat" let alone "cats are animals" let alone more complex declarative, procedural or episodic knowledge. So we cannot create "Based on a true story" cognitive architectures, only "Inspired by actual events" architectures ;-) ... Ben G Robert Bradbury wrote: > > Quoting from the brief announcement, "map cognitive functions to > neurological structures, and design psychologically-based and > neurobiologically-based cognitive architectures." > > I would be interested in whether anyone really *knows* what is going > on in this area (really)? Unlike, say the visual processing system, > or the auditory processing system (which Ray touched on in TSIN), is > the cognitive processing system currently understood at all? I don't > follow this field, so I have no idea whether neuroarchitectural > understanding (perhaps via fMRI) has reached the point where we have > tied our external understanding of what is going on to precise > biological architectures (which IMO is what they were going after). > > The best working understanding I have is something along the lines of > Calvin's explanation of local groups of neurons representing patterns > or thought (ideas or memes if you will), some copying and natural > selection taking place, with "intelligence" being some combination as > to numbers of simultaneous patterns which can be "held onto" at > sub-conscious level combined with some "wisdom" as to which of those > patterns individually or when combined would serve to produce an > interesting or meaningful result. > > I do not put the development of AGI or FAI in the same category as > understanding "functional mapping onto neurological structures" > (without which neurobiologically-based cognitive architectures would > be impossible). > > So was the problem that we simply do not have the tools yet (e.g. fMRI > resolution, or fine scale mapping of dendrite trees at billion neuron > level?) to accomplish stated goals of the project? > > And were most of the proposals directed at solving problems of > emulating how various researchers "think" the brain should work -- > rather than how the brain actually works? > > Robert > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From asa at nada.kth.se Sat Mar 17 14:01:41 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:01:41 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] DARPA Ends Brain Reverse Engineering Project In-Reply-To: References: <22360fa10703160810l23390dc9sb7ae07da34c1b016@mail.gmail.com> <20070316152608.GO31912@leitl.org> <45FAC1D5.9060602@goertzel.org> Message-ID: <58055.86.153.216.201.1174140101.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: > I would be interested in whether anyone really *knows* what is going on in > this area (really)? Unlike, say the visual processing system, or the > auditory processing system (which Ray touched on in TSIN), is the > cognitive > processing system currently understood at all? I don't follow this field, > so I have no idea whether neuroarchitectural understanding (perhaps via > fMRI) has reached the point where we have tied our external understanding > of > what is going on to precise biological architectures (which IMO is what > they > were going after). My answer would be that nobody really knows what is going on. We have a lot of piecemal information that makes sense or have empirical support, for example the emerging picture of the prefrontal lobes as having subsystems for working memory, linking to motivational states, estimation of value etc and them in turn tied to a motor planning/motor program storage in the cortex-basal ganglia loop system. We even have some bridges between the macrolevel and microlevel, such as working memory models and associative learning. The big problem is that there are a lot of holes in this understanding, and I personally think we are missing one or two key principles (such as how to make the neural assemblies form useful hierarchical or modular concepts). That might change very soon or not for a long time, it is impossible to predict beforehand. I know of at least one of the previously funded projects (the Gluck one). They do have a cool model but I doubt it could be easily or quickly extended to reach the high aims of the project. The other projects involved all seemed to use less connectionist models, which probably improves their ability to mimick psychology but makes mapping onto the brain very hard. > So was the problem that we simply do not have the tools yet (e.g. fMRI > resolution, or fine scale mapping of dendrite trees at billion neuron > level?) to accomplish stated goals of the project? None of the projects involved looked like they would be doing anything uploading-like. The problem is that this is all understanding-based models: to work we have to understand the high-level principles of the brain and thinking, and that is hard. Uploading gets around it by just brute-forcing the system. And as you said, most models used were models of how the brain ought to think according to the models already assumed by researchers. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Mar 17 16:28:02 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:28:02 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 12:22 PM 3/17/2007 +0000, BillK wrote: >On 3/16/07, Keith Henson wrote: snip > > Up to the days of railroad transportation, food was mostly a local > > problem. You could only improve the food supply per person by having fewer > > "persons." Thus wars that "threw away" a chunk of the population improved > > the food supply per person for those left. snip >I don't see how you can claim reasonably that Alexander's wars of >conquest were due to population pressure. Where an absolute ruler with >a strong army and police force exists, the opinion of the mass of the >population doesn't much matter. Certainly it is easier if the great >leader can manipulate public opinion to worship him and follow his >orders without argument. But if necessary harsher measures can enforce >his control. Opposition leaders can be killed. Large populations can >be exterminated (Stalin). If the great leader says join the army and >conquer the world, that's what they will do. It's not EP pressure >making them do it. Remember that our trait of going to war when things were looking bleak come out of that stone age, a *long* time before modern states developed. Still, can you cite a single case were a population started a war where they were *not* seeing a bleak future? >Hunter-gather tribes and democratic groups or countries may vote >whether or not to go to war, I can't think of a case where there was a vote by a population to go to war. Not that it would have been needed the day after Pearl Harbor. >and population pressure will be one of >the factors that will affect their decision. You make it sound rational. The point I make is that the process is almost automatic and rational thinking is suppressed. >The large oil reserves in >the next country (or the gold mines) will also be a factor to be >considered (as well as many other factors). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum >But for most of human history, the absolute ruler decided and the >population did as they were told. You might have a case if you said "recorded history." But the vast evolution history of our ancestors since they parted ways with the chimps was in tiny tribes, hunter gatherer bands which seldom could be larger than 100 people. There is a huge literature about the remaining hunter gatherer groups and their organization and leaders. You just can't get "absolute power" or do things seriously against the consensus in a group that small. >I think the problem is that you are looking for an absolute that >doesn't exist in human affairs. I am looking at a mathematical certainty: You cannot have a population larger than the ability of the environment to feed them. Stone age people evolved to be sensitive to future conditions because those who did had higher reproductive success. >*All* wars don't start because of population pressure. Some do. Population levels, being the denominator in income per capita are always a factor. Even more so is future anticipation of what is going to happen to income per capita. Thought experiment: Zero population, zero wars. >Wars are not even always called wars. >Dictators are not always called dictators. > >There are multiple reasons for everything, including wars. Population >pressure is always a factor. In some circumstances it will be the >overwhelming factor that outweighs everything else, but not always. "All wars arise from population pressure." (Heinlein 1959 p. 145) "Major Reid (Heinlein's character in Starship Troopers)was on the mark if you take "population pressure" to mean a falling ratio of resources to population (roughly income per capita in modern terms). There are sound evolutionary reasons why falling resources per capita (or the prospect of same) usually drives human populations into war. Wars and related social disruptions are here seen to be the outcome of a behavioral switch activated by particular environmental situations and mediated by xenophobic memes.[1] " (EP memes and war paper) Show me a case where a group *not* seeing a bleak future started a war. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 17:07:44 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:07:44 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 3/17/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > Show me a case where a group *not* seeing a bleak future started a war. > I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I agree that a nation or empire facing a bleak future might decide to start a war to reduce the population or gain more resources. Civil war would also count. History records some events of this type. But history also records many other wars which don't fit into this scenario. Many empire builders (like Alexander) started by quelling internal rebellion, then just kept expanding. Possible motives could be Power, Greed, Madness, Divine inspiration, or maybe he was just having too much fun to be able to stop. Note: 'Alexander' was driving the wars, not the nation(s) feelings about the future. And while they were winning everyone carried on supporting him. Who's going to oppose getting more plunder, slaves, etc.? Your scenario would appear to indicate that if a nation appears to be threatening war, then the war can be averted by giving them what they need. More land, food aid, any aid they ask for. But the real world doesn't work like that. The fretful nation would take that as a sign of weakness and think 'Well, we've got what we needed, but ---- why shouldn't we just take it all? Our neighbours wouldn't have given us all this stuff if they weren't frightened of us. Let's go!' You are relying on inbuilt hunter-gatherer instincts. But humans can divert their instincts into better endeavours. That's called civilisation. BillK From sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no Sat Mar 17 23:02:05 2007 From: sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:02:05 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> 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><003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> I have great respect for you and your work Damien, but I don't know you like the other people here. I threw in my comments earlier as I'm an heartly atheist and think it's scary how easily people can naivly believe. That's not directed to you or anyone on this alias, but more what I see in the general public and amongst my friends and family. I'm sure you already know about James Randi's work on the subject: http://www.randi.org/ I love reading and learning about AI, nanotechnology, radical life extensions and the rest of topics that involves self-improvement and future possibilities. But I don't feel anything for psi stuff, other than in hollywood movies. I'm sure we can one day do things like elevation and remote viewing thanks to technological advances. But I strongly doubt that biological humans that have evolved through natural selection of evolution, have any psi abilities. I'm having a hard time figuring out the evolutionary basis for remote viewing (or other weird abilities that some people claim to possess). I can't see how it improves the survival or reproduction ability of humans. Regards, Sondre - who applies current knowledge to aggressively improve and extend life. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:20 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. At 01:40 PM 3/16/2007 -0400, John K Clark wrote: >If I were to follow your links and read this >stuff it would take hours, be very unpleasant, and at the end of the day I >would not be one bit wiser than I am right now John, I regard you as a pal (although we've never met except via electrons), and a smart, sarcastic and funny guy. But on this topic I no longer care what you think. I understand your attitude; it's a very safe and cautious one that in many instances optimizes available time and energy investment. It also inevitably misses the boat with drastic novelties. Since I and some others on the list enjoy playing with such off the wall possibilities (which is presumably why we mostly also like thinking about other topics such as MNT, AI, cryonics, radical life extension, astrobiology, and other "sciences without content (yet)" reviled by most sensible, cautious people), how about you just leave us to our follies and we'll cease prodding you with evidence you won't look at. (I immediately seem to breach that condition, below, but I'm speaking to others now.) >I'll tell you one thing, if I could foretell the future I sure as hell >wouldn't be wasting my time making documentaries about myself, >valuable time that I could be spending with my stockbroker and bookie. I understand there are people who do that. But my own interest in psi (at this point, as noted, I'm writing to anyone else who's still gives a shit) is closer to the intrigued bafflement of people looking at odd behavior like prodigious autistic calculation or, on a different scale, detection of neutralinos. Obviously if psi were the sort of thing anyone could turn into an engineering application, it would have been done already. That tells us something about it, but sheds no direct light on results such as the presentiment data. This sort of data is not interesting to John, but it did intrigue Nobel laureate Kary B. Mullis (Polymerase Chain Reaction), who sat in Dean Radin's lab and saw aggregated presponse data he'd just generated himself ( http://discovermagazine.com/web-exclusives/25-greatest-science-books-intro/ ). Once again--this is not an argument from Authority (I could only lose, at the moment, attempting such a move); it's an indication that you don't have to be a fool to accept the available evidence. I now await the character assassination this will attract to Mullis, as it has already to Josephson. Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ********************************************************************** This e-mail has been scanned for viruses and found clean. ********************************************************************** From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 23:29:30 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:29:30 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. In-Reply-To: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> 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> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> Message-ID: On 3/18/07, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: I'm having a hard time figuring out the evolutionary basis for remote > viewing (or other weird abilities that some people claim to possess). I > can't see how it improves the survival or reproduction ability of humans. On the contrary, anyone who had ESP would be like the only sighted man in the kingdom of the blind, and would enjoy enormous advantage. We should expect that such abilities would become at least as well developed as other senses through the process of evolutionary competition. We wouldn't be sitting around debating whether ESP exists because it would be completely obvious and commonplace. The fact that evolution does not seem to have taken this path should tell us something. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Mar 17 23:37:34 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:37:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. In-Reply-To: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.n o> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070317181945.02245158@satx.rr.com> At 12:02 AM 3/18/2007 +0100, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: >I'm an heartly atheist Me too. >and think it's scary how easily people can naivly believe. Yes, absolutely. >I'm sure you already know about James Randi's work on the subject: >http://www.randi.org/ Randi has done some good things, but in his way he's as silly and even scoundrelly as the "psychic" frauds and fools he unmasks. Here (sorry for the length) is something I wrote years ago about this: ============== Randi's published works come complete with glowing endorsements from such notables as Dr Carl Sagan, Dr Isaac Asimov, the late Dr Christopher Evans (author of the cruelly hilarious Cults of Unreason), Martin Gardner, Dr Ray Hyman. Surely no skeptical text bearing testimonials from experts of this calibre could contain elementary blunders? Let's see. Perhaps one of the most unlikely sidebars to the American lunar landing program was a series of ESP tests performed by astronaut Dr Edgar D. Mitchell while Apollo 14 was on its trip to our sister world in January, 1971. Commander Alan Shepard and Ed Mitchell explored the uplands region north of the Frau Mauro crater before returning to Earth, a feat sufficiently preposterous to get them into the history books. In 1972, Mitchell retired from the Navy and NASA to found the Palo Alto Institute of Noetic Science, a kind of proto-New Age study centre for the paranormal and, as far as I can make out, never did anything interesting again. Now, by a stroke of audacity and with a keen nose for controversy, the Amazing Randi's main attack on the central methods of parapsychology was directed to Mitchell's claims for his space ESP experiment. This discussion, Randi asserted, `may indicate [that the astronaut's] need to prove what he believes to be true overrides his scientific discretion.' This is a cry often raised against the disturbing results of parapsychology but, as we shall see, it is much more aptly turned back against the magician. Dr Mitchell's rather minor experiment, notable only for its lunar connections, is fully described in the June, 1971 number of the Journal of Parapsychology. Strangely enough, Randi seems never to have heard of this scholarly document, for he relies instead on garbled reports from the New York Times and an abbreviated account for the lay reader from Mitchell's own 1974 popsci book Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science. The first newspaper account Randi presents states simply that Mitchell, in cislunar space, worked as agent (what we might loosely dub a `psychic transmitter') with random sequences of five different symbols. `Four persons in the United States attempted to guess the order of the symbols. They were able to do this with success that could be duplicated by chance in one out of 3000 experiments. This in parapsychology experiments is considered reasonably successful.' Randi's interpretation of this inoffensive report--an interpretation endorsed, presumably, by Sagan, Asimov, Gardner, and other fine skeptical minds--is astonishing. `You must be left with the impression that there is indeed some significance to the experiment,' Randi observes scathingly (but quite correctly, as it happens), `since,' he adds, `guessing the cards in an ESP deck by chance alone would have yielded results of 5 to 1, not a whopping 3000 to 1!' I thought my eyes were deceiving me when I read these words. The statement is simply ridiculous, but typical of the free and easy way professional skeptics have when it comes to their statistical analysis of parapsychological results. To grasp exactly how ludicrous Randi's remark is, let's recall Dr Helmut Schmidt's second automated experiment. There, his operators obtained a positive deviation of 401 guesses from a mean chance expectation of 5000. The odds of such a deviation arising by pure coincidence were calculated at around one in 10 billion. In Mitchell's central core of data there were 175 guesses (a pretty small database, sadly; I said this was a minor experiment). There was a chance probability of 4 to 1 of guessing wrongly, or 1 in 5 of guessing correctly--not 5 to 1, as Randi erroneously states. I'm not quibbling in making these preliminary points. You get it right, or you don't bother. Now, since there were 175 guesses, and each guess had 1 chance in 5 of being right, the average number you'd expect right by chance is one-fifth of 175, or 35 right. In fact, the score attained by Mitchell's Earth-based percipients deviated from this figure by 21 guesses--and the likelihood of such a swing occurring by accident is indeed 1 in 3000 (it's nearly 4 standard deviations). Randi's elementary mistake ought to be laughably apparent to any scientist. His team of pre-publication reviewers were scandalously slack in failing to blue-pencil it at once. All too often, skeptic or believer, we see what we wish to see. Might this failure of peer review indicate that a heartfelt need to disparage what they believed to be pernicious nonsense had subverted their scientific discretion? =============== >I'm having a hard time figuring out the >evolutionary basis for remote viewing (or other >weird abilities that some people claim to >possess). I can't see how it improves the >survival or reproduction ability of humans. I discuss psi in an evolutionary context in my forthcoming book. First, though, one looks to see if something happens, and then, if it does, one tries to philosophize about it. Let's keep the horse before Descartes. Damien From sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no Sat Mar 17 23:48:20 2007 From: sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:48:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. In-Reply-To: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> 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><003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> Message-ID: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7E@webmail.sensetech.no> I found it amusing to see Deborah Borgen featured on the five.tv britain's psychic challenge. She is Norwegian and supposedly one of Europe's top psychic experts (according to the five.tv site). I have seen some of the TV episodes of Sensing Murder, featuring her and other psychics. The main thing I've learned from the show, they have not yet to my knowledge, helped solve any of the cases they have worked on. If they had, it would have been all over the news + they would have made some follow-up show on those cases where they had helped. I've never seen that, and I doubt we'll see something anytime soon. 20 years ago, she "hit the wall" and was close to ending her life. Today she is the only coach in the psychic realm in Norway. And I'm sure she helps a lot of people, she has to be a good coach and there are a lot of people that need an updated outlook on their life, their future and getting more clearly defined goals. But I doubt in the benefits of having psychics at the basis for this process. We should get a lot more coaching in the field of transhumanism, get more and more people involved in the process of continuing self-improvement and working for an improved local and global environment. /Sondre -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Sondre Bjell?s Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. I have great respect for you and your work Damien, but I don't know you like the other people here. I threw in my comments earlier as I'm an heartly atheist and think it's scary how easily people can naivly believe. That's not directed to you or anyone on this alias, but more what I see in the general public and amongst my friends and family. I'm sure you already know about James Randi's work on the subject: http://www.randi.org/ I love reading and learning about AI, nanotechnology, radical life extensions and the rest of topics that involves self-improvement and future possibilities. But I don't feel anything for psi stuff, other than in hollywood movies. I'm sure we can one day do things like elevation and remote viewing thanks to technological advances. But I strongly doubt that biological humans that have evolved through natural selection of evolution, have any psi abilities. I'm having a hard time figuring out the evolutionary basis for remote viewing (or other weird abilities that some people claim to possess). I can't see how it improves the survival or reproduction ability of humans. Regards, Sondre - who applies current knowledge to aggressively improve and extend life. -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:20 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV. At 01:40 PM 3/16/2007 -0400, John K Clark wrote: >If I were to follow your links and read this >stuff it would take hours, be very unpleasant, and at the end of the day I >would not be one bit wiser than I am right now John, I regard you as a pal (although we've never met except via electrons), and a smart, sarcastic and funny guy. But on this topic I no longer care what you think. I understand your attitude; it's a very safe and cautious one that in many instances optimizes available time and energy investment. It also inevitably misses the boat with drastic novelties. Since I and some others on the list enjoy playing with such off the wall possibilities (which is presumably why we mostly also like thinking about other topics such as MNT, AI, cryonics, radical life extension, astrobiology, and other "sciences without content (yet)" reviled by most sensible, cautious people), how about you just leave us to our follies and we'll cease prodding you with evidence you won't look at. (I immediately seem to breach that condition, below, but I'm speaking to others now.) >I'll tell you one thing, if I could foretell the future I sure as hell >wouldn't be wasting my time making documentaries about myself, >valuable time that I could be spending with my stockbroker and bookie. I understand there are people who do that. But my own interest in psi (at this point, as noted, I'm writing to anyone else who's still gives a shit) is closer to the intrigued bafflement of people looking at odd behavior like prodigious autistic calculation or, on a different scale, detection of neutralinos. Obviously if psi were the sort of thing anyone could turn into an engineering application, it would have been done already. That tells us something about it, but sheds no direct light on results such as the presentiment data. This sort of data is not interesting to John, but it did intrigue Nobel laureate Kary B. Mullis (Polymerase Chain Reaction), who sat in Dean Radin's lab and saw aggregated presponse data he'd just generated himself ( http://discovermagazine.com/web-exclusives/25-greatest-science-books-intro/ ). Once again--this is not an argument from Authority (I could only lose, at the moment, attempting such a move); it's an indication that you don't have to be a fool to accept the available evidence. I now await the character assassination this will attract to Mullis, as it has already to Josephson. Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ********************************************************************** This e-mail has been scanned for viruses and found clean. ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Mar 17 23:52:54 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:52:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition In-Reply-To: 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> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070317184645.023d5988@satx.rr.com> >We wouldn't be sitting around debating whether ESP exists because it >would be completely obvious and commonplace. The fact that evolution >does not seem to have taken this path should tell us something. Yes, this also explains why very fleet-footed predators never evolved. Their prey would never be able to escape them, and would all be swiftly eaten, and the predators would perish. It also accounts for the absence of flight among living creatures, since they would be able to avoid all predators and would immediately perish in a terrible population explosion that obliterated their food supplies. Luckily, there are no feedback processes in evolution, or who knows what weird things we'd find emerging from our ponds! Damien Broderick From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat Mar 17 23:49:46 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:49:46 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070317180042.03f4ac00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:07 PM 3/17/2007 +0000, you wrote: >On 3/17/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > > > Show me a case where a group *not* seeing a bleak future started a war. > >I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. > >I agree that a nation or empire facing a bleak future might decide If you are going to disagree with me, I would appreciate your understanding what you are disagreeing with. "Decide" implies rational thinking. I propose that the evolved psychological mechanisms turned on in the run up to war seriously degrade the ability of humans to think rationally. >to start a war to reduce the population *Nobody* starts a war to reduce the population. It has that effect, or at least had it in the EEA, but it is not seen as a goal. > or gain more resources. Even this is not common. The usual rationalization is that the people being attacked are evil scum. >Civil war >would also count. History records some events of this type. > >But history also records many other wars which don't fit into this scenario. >Many empire builders (like Alexander) started by quelling internal >rebellion, Why did he need to quell internal rebellion? Obviously people rebelled. Why? And why when they did it and not a generation earlier or later? I recognize there is an element of chaos involved, but consider a forest. It takes a good many years after a fire for enough fuel to accumulate to have another fire. A forest fire requires a lightening strike or some other source of ignition, but you can't get a sustained fire without enough fuel. The exact same model will work with human populations. They used to build up, and in some places still do. Where they do you have wars and related unrest. snip >Your scenario would appear to indicate that if a nation appears to be >threatening war, then the war can be averted by giving them what they >need. Not possible. A nation with a growing population will overwhelm any such attempts. snip >You are relying on inbuilt hunter-gatherer instincts. But humans can >divert their instincts into better endeavours. I feel that the chances of them being able to do so are much improved if they understand their instincts. For example, people clearly have build in powerful psychological mechanisms that are called forth in capture-bonding. I make the case that humans _also_ have evolved psychological traits to abuse captives to turn on the capture bonding mechanism. This is where hazing and the prison abuses in Iraq came from. (Also see the Stanford prison experiment.) IF people were consciously aware that humans have these traits right out of the stone age, they *might* be able to take special precautions to prevent uncivilized behavior. > That's called civilisation. A shaky state. How many days do you think it would take after food shipments were shut off for NYC to break down entirely? Keith Henson From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 05:45:52 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:45:52 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070317184645.023d5988@satx.rr.com> 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> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070317184645.023d5988@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/18/07, Damien Broderick wrote: >We wouldn't be sitting around debating whether ESP exists because it > >would be completely obvious and commonplace. The fact that evolution > >does not seem to have taken this path should tell us something. > > Yes, this also explains why very fleet-footed predators never > evolved. Their prey would never be able to escape them, and would all > be swiftly eaten, and the predators would perish. It also accounts > for the absence of flight among living creatures, since they would be > able to avoid all predators and would immediately perish in a > terrible population explosion that obliterated their food supplies. > Luckily, there are no feedback processes in evolution, or who knows > what weird things we'd find emerging from our ponds! Of course there are feedback processes, but these lead to a dynamic equilibrium, not usually elimination of the adaptive trait: vision leads to camouflage which leads to better vision, and so on. If ESP were possible, it would be as useful as a sense like vision, if not more so, and we should expect to see evidence of it everywhere in nature, just as vision has evolved independently many times. Moreover, we should expect that it will become increasingly refined and powerful through evolutionary competition, just as other senses have. Stathis Papaioannou Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Sun Mar 18 06:56:23 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:56:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] 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><003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <001201c7692a$dafc76f0$de084e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" Wrote: > John, I regard you as a pal (although we've never met except via > electrons), and a smart, sarcastic and funny guy. Thanks Damien, I too regard you as a pal, and if we ever meet in meat-space I will be delighted to shake your hand. When we argue I hope you don't take it as any sign of disrespect. When someone can give me a strong counter-argument such as yourself (not quite as strong as my initial attack, at least in my humble opinion, but nevertheless pretty God damn strong) I tend to think more of that person, not less. > I and some others on the list enjoy playing with such off the wall > possibilities And there is nothing wrong with that, absolutely positively nothing. And when you bounce ideas off me I hope you don't take personal offence over my response. In the heat of argument I might get a little carried away from time to time, but please understand, if I didn't realize you had a brain I wouldn't bother to respond at all. John K Clark From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 12:57:11 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:57:11 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse In-Reply-To: <008e01c7678a$ff1a9b30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070313075649.GK31912@leitl.org> <04fa01c765f6$f8cf3dc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070314091153.GN31912@leitl.org> <20070314094120.GQ31912@leitl.org> <008e01c7678a$ff1a9b30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/16/07, Lee Corbin wrote: Well, I do feel a need to reassess my views on functionalism, but where > do we start, exactly? I think that in our world we ought to recognize > that human thoughts are distinctly different and superior to the thoughts > of dogs and monkeys, and vastly superior to the "thoughts" of bacteria > and amoebas. Panthetic beliefs that mountains and rivers have souls > have not withstood modern criticism. So we really should start from a > point that declares at the outset dust and rocks to be unfeeling and > completely inanimate things. > > The latest refuge for me---i.e., where I seem to have been driven > by seeing no other way out---is to stipulate that computation must > be accompanied by causality: nothing shall be deemed a calculation > (I use the words interchangably) which does not follow the usual > kind of causal flows that we are familiar with in our daily lives. > > It is on this common sense basis that I reject notions of universal > dovetailers, or notions that dust floating in space, or worse---that > entirely arbitrarily made mappings---can in any way be rightly > regarded as underlying computation or experience. The common sense notion of computation and intelligence is safe if functionalism is right. If computations are hidden in noise they remain just that - hidden, as inaccessible to us as if they were in another universe or at another level of implementation in a simulation. We can't affect them in any way: if we blow up a rock, the computations that could be arbitrarily mapped to the thermal motion of its atoms can as easily be mapped to the newly configured rock dust. Therefore, scientists and ordinary folk need not worry about this sort of stuff at all, because for all the observable effects it has, it is as pointless as discussions about Eugen's (and other religious mystics') angels on the head of a pin. Thus, there is no reason to throw out functionalism on the grounds that inanimate objects don't talk to us. There are, however, at least two interesting consequences of the everything is a computation idea. One is that that the orderly universe we see may be a simulation on one of these computers. The other is that although there may be no possible physical interaction between separate universes, this poses no impediment to the continuity of consciousness (or better, the illusion of continuity of consciousness). If you die and a close enough copy is created in another universe, you will feel that you have survived, even though no-one from this universe will be able to reach you. An example of this is the quantum immortality idea that the MWI of QM seems to imply. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 13:30:44 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:30:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life Message-ID: <470a3c520703180630r45ff5cfdif173f8d69288ece7@mail.gmail.com> http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/seminar_on_transhumanism_and_religion_in_second_life/ From mabranu at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 16:20:21 2007 From: mabranu at yahoo.com (TheMan) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? Message-ID: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> In Arthur C Clarke's and Stephen Baxter's "The Light Of Other Days", posthumans develop quantum technology that enables them to look back in time, through wormholes in spacetime, at whatever point in time and space they wish (but only all past time and up to their present time). For example, they can watch everything we all have done with our lives, even when we (thought we) were alone. Later on, this technology is further developed by future generations, posthumans, so that they can use it to copy all human beings who have ever lived, and "resurrect" them in the future (the time of those posthumans). By being saved by posthumans in such a way, all humans will get a much longer life, as the future into which they are saved has far more advanced life-prolonging technology than humanity has today. If we are only our information, not our matter, and if this kind of technology will sooner or later be invented, it may seem that we are all already guaranteed immortality even if we die today. But even if such ?copying people from the past?-technology is developed at some point in the future, it may not be that the ones (the posthumans) using it will want to resurrect all of us. They will want to resurrect only the ones they find worth resurrecting, depending on their preferences. As those posthumans will be a continuation of humanity of today, and since humanity of today have preferences, it?s not very far-fetched to assume that they too will have preferences, although their preferences may be different from ours, just as our preferences are different from those of our ancestors. I?m a hedonist. I want a life that is as long and happy as possible (the longer, the happier, as there will be more time for happiness the longer I live (and better technology for increasing happiness as well)) Given this preference of mine, and given that some of us may be saved by future posthumans in the way described above - how should I live to make them want to save me? Is it, in a case like mine, really so smart to prolong one?s life the way Ray Kurzweil does, spending lots of time, energy and money on supplements and nutritious food, etc, or is it better to use all that time, energy and money (as well as any other resources one owns) on, for example, helping others? If you could save all the greedy guys from all of mankind?s history into your time, would you do it? Maybe not. Maybe you'd mainly care to save the most unselfish people that there were, as that?s already a huge amount of people and as the unselfish ones are the ones who most of all people deserve a really long life. Likewise, a future post-human society may choose to save only the most unselfish people from our time, and not care about the rest of us. Ray Kurzwell may live for, say, 500 years, but the future post-humans may be more likely to make a copy of Mother Theresa than of him (and that way, she may live much longer than he will), so perhaps he would be better off living approximately like Mother Theresa (which would mean giving away all his money, meaning he couldn?t buy the expensive supplements he buys now, etc). It seems to me that the Ray Kurzweil way of living, although probably considerably more altruistic than most people?s way of living, is still far from 100% altruistic, as he could probably save a lot of starving human beings? lives with the money that he now spends on expensive super-supplements for himself ? and, probably, will spend on his cryopreservation. (Or is his lifestyle still the morally best one in the long run? It could be, if it is utilitarian. If the consequences of his life are utilitarian, will future posthumans care whether he lives the way he lives out of honest, pure utilitarian intentions or out of some degree of egotism (possibly deceivingly labelled as pure utilitarianism)?) It?s not clear to me that the chances of being saved by future posthumans is increased more, or even equally much, by a Ray Kurzweil way of living, than/as for example by a Mother Theresa way of being ? given that the posthumans value altruism more than anything else. Maximizing one?s own personal survival, like Ray Kurzweil does, does seem less altruistic than a lifestyle where you are ready to sacrifice your own longevity for others, doesn?t it? If, on the other hand, the posthumans haven?t developed a lot more altruism than we have, they may just want to copy us for a living-beings-museum (like Jurassic Park) purpose only, and then they may only be interested in having just a few samples of each of roughly all the general types of human beings represented on Earth, meaning they may choose to copy only a few single individuals of each general kind of us, like for example a few ballet dancers, a few skydivers, a few albinos, a few satanists, a few feminists, a few transhumanists, a few 100%-altruists, etc. Then, to have the best chances of being saved by the posthumans, you should live in a very original way, so original that only a few people have even come close to that kind of lifestyle before ? and will ever in the future. Again, this is based on how we might choose if we could copy any or all of the people from the past into our time. Maybe we wouldn?t copy them all, and not even all the altruistic ones, but just some samples of each kind of person, for example some specimen of the murderers of the time, some specimen of the altruists of the time, some specimen of the best cave painters of the time, etc. Other criteria that may decide whether one will be saved by future posthumans or not, may be whether one is a rights ethician or a utilitarian, good looking on the outside or on the inside, fun to be with or honest, stubborn or able to let things go, intelligent or happy, a good artist or a good worker etc - all depending on what kind of persons posthumanity will find interesting/good/fun/attractive/useful etc. Some transhumanists seem to have suggested that you should be a famous person, or, if you can?t, you should try to keep close to famous persons as much of your time as possible, so that as many posthumans as possible will see you when they watch the famous persons of your time. That way, more posthumans will see you, and thereby chances are increased that at least one of the posthumans that happen to see you will find you good-looking, or interesting in some other way, and therefore save you into his/her time. So that?s one more plausible strategy. It?s also possible that long after that first period of posthumans saving some selection of human beings from our time, there may come an age of post-posthumans, who will finally save us all. But even if that will happen, the ones of us who are also saved by ?the first generation of posthumans? may get an even better life (longer, and that way containing more happiness) than the ones of us who were only saved by the eventual post-post humans. Because, in addition to getting to live both in our time and in the time of the post-post humans, the former human beings are also allowed to live for some time in the era between, meaning they live even more years (probably years of happiness). So what I?m wondering is, is it really egotistically rational to do as Ray Kurzweil, and try to live as long as possible in ?our time?, or is it egotistically more rational to live in another way, and in that case, what way? /Par ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Mar 18 17:09:21 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:09:21 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> >It?s not clear to me that the >chances of being saved by future posthumans is >increased more, or even equally much, by a Ray >Kurzweil way of living, than/as for example by a >Mother Theresa way of being ? given that the >posthumans value altruism more than anything else. Only if posthumans are godschmucked idiots will they wish to retrieve Mother Teresa. I suggest you read Christopher Hitchens? book The Missionary Position. Or start with http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html e.g.: "One of the most salient examples of people's willingness to believe anything if it is garbed in the appearance of holiness is the uncritical acceptance of the idea of Mother Teresa as a saint by people who would normally be thinking - however lazily - in a secular or rational manner. In other words, in every sense it is an unexamined claim. It's unexamined journalistically - no one really takes a look at what she does. And it is unexamined as to why it should be she who is spotlighted as opposed to many very selfless people who devote their lives to the relief of suffering in what we used to call the "Third World." Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism, for the most extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine? If you ask most people if they agree with the pope's views on population, for example, they say they think they are rather extreme. Well here's someone whose life's work is the propagation of the most extreme version of that. That's the first motive. The second was a sort of journalistic curiosity as to why it was that no one had asked any serious questions about Mother Teresa's theory or practice. Regarding her practice, I couldn't help but notice that she had rallied to the side of the Duvalier family in Haiti, for instance, that she had taken money - over a million dollars - from Charles Keating, the Lincoln Savings and Loans swindler, even though it had been shown to her that the money was stolen; that she has been an ally of the most reactionary forces in India and in many other countries; that she has campaigned recently to prevent Ireland from ceasing to be the only country in Europe with a constitutional ban on divorce, that her interventions are always timed to assist the most conservative and obscurantist forces." Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Sun Mar 18 17:21:29 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:21:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45FD7519.3090600@pobox.com> Damien Broderick wrote: >>It?s not clear to me that the >>chances of being saved by future posthumans is >>increased more, or even equally much, by a Ray >>Kurzweil way of living, than/as for example by a >>Mother Theresa way of being ? given that the >>posthumans value altruism more than anything else. > > Only if posthumans are godschmucked idiots will > they wish to retrieve Mother Teresa. That's going too far, Damien. So she screwed up. Well, she was young - under a century, in fact, practically an infant. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 18 17:42:06 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:42:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition In-Reply-To: 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> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070317184645.023d5988@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:45:52 -0400, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > If ESP were possible, it would be as useful as a sense like vision, if > not more so,and we should expect to see evidence of it everywhere in > nature, just as vision has > evolved independently many times. I'm a skeptic about this subject too, but I'm afraid I don't find your argument above very convincing. It is at least conceivable that ESP is a brand new experiment of evolution. ESP *might* be present now but at such low frequency that we can't yet determine it to be real with p < .05 or with p < .01 (or with p at whatever is your preferred threshold of statistical significance, which is after all only a matter of convention). Reminds me of the old song lyrics: "This is [or at least it might be] the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius." :-) -gts From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 18:25:59 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:25:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <45FD7519.3090600@pobox.com> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> <45FD7519.3090600@pobox.com> Message-ID: I choose "Plan C" (unique individuals). Which means I would need to fulfill being a copycat of Hannibal. Of course aspiring to be a copycat of Clarice has its merits but that would likely require a sex change operation (and of course I have to get someone to take on the Hannibal role). Interesting of course to note that Hopkins cited the HAL 9000 as an inspiration for his portrayal. Now there's a spin exercise for you, to become remanifest as HAL 9000 interpretation of RJB, or maybe the RJB interpretation of the HAL 9000. Hmmm.... Of course, on a somewhat more serious note, unless you invoke "magic physics" the looking back in time exercise is probably a pipe dream. What you can hope for is an allocation of resources sufficient to recreate a million (or maybe even a billion) variants on entities who leave behind enough information that one can get "reasonable approximations". So anyone with a significant "dataprint" stands a chance of being recreated. Whether any future intelligences would bother to do so is an open question. We have the complete genome sequence of C. elegans, various Drosophila species, even Pufferfish (Fugu rubripes). We could, with sufficient funding, create them from scratch in a lab. Would we choose to do so? I doubt it. IMO, only at such time as there are no forward progress vectors available will people turn around and wrestle with the large scale recreation of the past. I doubt there will be a lack of forward progress vectors for a very long time. (Mind you we may close out the theoretical progress vectors in the not-so-distant future, but that does not eliminate the engineering progress vectors.) So, the questions you should be asking are not whether you are appealing on a universal basis, but whether you can make oneself appealing (for recreation purposes) to a circa 2200, 2300, 2400, etc. era historian, archaeologist or anthropologist who may have resources, but only of a limited nature, at their disposal. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Sun Mar 18 18:43:32 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:43:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 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> Message-ID: <003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede> Damien: I suppose I might as well throw in a few pointers. Look for Prof. Jessica Utts, [...] By chance, did somebody try something as ridicolous as the following? A Mach-Zehnder interferometer http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/MachZehnder/MachZehn der.html and, inside, into the interferometer, the head of some ESP active subject? The head of the subject may be shielded, ie to test Bohm-Aharonov effects ;-) (ie using electrons, and not photons). Of course it would be interesting if the subject would destroy (even partially) the usual interference (ie changing the phase of the amplitude in one wing, and not in the other). There are many possible improvements :-) like testing the second order interference (with entangled photons, one going up the other going left); or using a double M-Z interferometer; or a Franson interferometer; etc. Bah, it seems a stupidity, 'una baggianata'. From asa at nada.kth.se Sun Mar 18 19:03:15 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:03:15 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2045.163.1.72.81.1174244595.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > >>It?s not clear to me that the >>chances of being saved by future posthumans is >>increased more, or even equally much, by a Ray >>Kurzweil way of living, than/as for example by a >>Mother Theresa way of being ? given that the >>posthumans value altruism more than anything else. > > Only if posthumans are godschmucked idiots will > they wish to retrieve Mother Teresa. I suggest > you read Christopher Hitchens? book The Missionary Position. Or posthumans with a sarcastic sense of humour. "Hello madam. As you no doubt know, you have been dead for 334 years. During this time, did you go to heaven?" I think altruism is irrelevant as a "bait" for posthuman retrieval, as are most other motivations. Uniqueness makes much more sense. The more unique, interesting and tangled up in important things you are, the better. You might also go for the trick suggested by Charles Sheffield in _Tomorrow and Tomorrow_, where the protagonist deliberately set out to create mysteries only he knew the truth about, and ensured that future historians would know that he knew. But as Robert said, resurrection is unlikely to happen through Clarke-Baxter wormholes. I would bet on massive brute-force constraint calculations retrodicting the possible past, and that would create resurrections of everybody. It still remains to ensure that you get fished up from the simulator and given access to base reality if the posthumans are not totally into ultra-altruism (or something more sinister, like post-Jehova's Witnesses trying to convert *everybody* retroactively - the mormons may baptise past generations, but the PJWs will try to get them to join the church actively). I'd rather get to posthumanity by growing up into a posthuman than becoming their pet. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From charlie at antipope.org Sun Mar 18 19:03:51 2007 From: charlie at antipope.org (Charlie Stross) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:03:51 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <45FD7519.3090600@pobox.com> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> <45FD7519.3090600@pobox.com> Message-ID: <45FD8D17.7030201@antipope.org> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Damien Broderick wrote: >>> >> Only if posthumans are godschmucked idiots will >> they wish to retrieve Mother Teresa. > > That's going too far, Damien. So she screwed up. Well, she was young - > under a century, in fact, practically an infant. I don't think that wilfully withholding pain relief medication from terminally ill patients on the grounds that suffering is "good for the soul" should be dismissed as lightly as that. >From any kind of extropian point of view, Teresa of Calcutta was a very nasty piece of work indeed -- just one with much better PR than your average grand inquisitor. She blighted many tens of thousands of lives, and she seems to have done so for no other reason than her own ambition to be immortalized in the pantheon of the Church of Rome. -- Charlie From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Mar 18 19:13:18 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:13:18 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition on TV In-Reply-To: <003801c7698d$54548940$53961f97@archimede> 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> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070318140758.0236d6c8@satx.rr.com> At 07:43 PM 3/18/2007 +0100, Serafino wrote: >it would be interesting >if the subject would destroy (even partially) >the usual interference (ie changing the phase >of the amplitude in one wing, and not >in the other). Dr. Evan Harris Walker and others did something along these lines, trying (as I recall) to modify interference fringes; there are disputes in the literature over the outcome, but I'm inclined to think that no such effect was seen. But of course many machines devised by Dr. Helmut Schmidt to test psychokinesis operate directly at the quantum level, since the decay rates of isotopes are modified slightly up or down, and this has been achieved retrocausally as well. (Don't hit me, I'm just the reporter.) Damien Broderick From sentience at pobox.com Sun Mar 18 19:17:55 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:17:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <45FD8D17.7030201@antipope.org> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> <45FD7519.3090600@pobox.com> <45FD8D17.7030201@antipope.org> Message-ID: <45FD9063.3070408@pobox.com> Charlie Stross wrote: > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > >>Damien Broderick wrote: >> >>>Only if posthumans are godschmucked idiots will >>>they wish to retrieve Mother Teresa. >> >>That's going too far, Damien. So she screwed up. Well, she was young - >>under a century, in fact, practically an infant. > > I don't think that wilfully withholding pain relief medication from > terminally ill patients on the grounds that suffering is "good for the > soul" should be dismissed as lightly as that. > > From any kind of extropian point of view, Teresa of Calcutta was a very > nasty piece of work indeed -- just one with much better PR than your > average grand inquisitor. She blighted many tens of thousands of lives, > and she seems to have done so for no other reason than her own ambition > to be immortalized in the pantheon of the Church of Rome. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the rest of us were perfect. Look, there's within-species variance in altruism, and then there's between-species variance in altruism. You know how, the same that, even though human beings think they have intelligence differences from other human beings, and think that "brains aren't everything in the real world", they don't invite chimps to be the CEOs of major corporations? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From spike66 at comcast.net Sun Mar 18 19:17:37 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:17:37 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200703181927.l2IJRnTn029585@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of TheMan ... > Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? > > In Arthur C Clarke's and Stephen Baxter's "The Light > Of Other Days", posthumans develop quantum technology... TheMan, I don't recall seeing posts from you in the past. This is a great first post, lotsa thoughts and coherence. > ...I'm a hedonist. I want a life that is as long and > happy as possible ... /Par I am with you there bigtime. I hedon as often as possible. Such a nice day is this, I think I shall go out hedoning now in fact. Welcome TheMan! Or shall we call you /Par? spike From sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no Sun Mar 18 19:39:10 2007 From: sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:39:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever Message-ID: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A87@webmail.sensetech.no> I'm recently new to this list and I wanted to hear your own personal experiences on longevity and personal improvements. It is now more than two years since I read Fantastic Voyage by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman M.D. and it has changed my life (http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/). While I have for many years been interested in extropy and transhumanism, the book gave me a kick start to get into a better and more controlled path for longevity. So I work out 3-4 times a week, I take aggressive amounts of vitamins, minerals, oils and other nutrients. Follows a healthy diet (recently became a vegetarian) and haven't had soda water (Coca Cola, etc.) in more than two years. I rarely drink coffee, but consume a good deal of tee with Stevia as sweetener. I try to involve myself in multiple projects in both work and personal life, on various subjects and tasks. Reading lots of books on technology, health and philosophy (please feel free to suggest some for me). In the last two years my health has improved dramatically, I have a lot more energy to do whatever I want. I rarely watch any TV, but do tend to use a lot of time behind the computer. My memory has improved and I easily remember details from discussions I have with people. Having a hard time getting friends and family to adopt the same plan and outlook for their own life. Any good advice on how to convince people? It's not a lack of knowledge, people know what is good and bad, but they don't seem to care. They don't think they will get cancer. They don't think they will be the ones dying prematurely. Regards, Sondre Bjell?s ********************************************************************** This e-mail has been scanned for viruses and found clean. ********************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bret at bonfireproductions.com Sun Mar 18 20:38:35 2007 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:38:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life In-Reply-To: <470a3c520703180630r45ff5cfdif173f8d69288ece7@mail.gmail.com> References: <470a3c520703180630r45ff5cfdif173f8d69288ece7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B4919B8-78AE-4032-B430-FBCDAE4377C5@bonfireproductions.com> Hi Giu1io - do we sign up in SL - I may have gotten the notice in SL, but I had about 85 when I went in, missed it. On Mar 18, 2007, at 9:30 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/ > seminar_on_transhumanism_and_religion_in_second_life/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Sun Mar 18 21:06:06 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:06:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever In-Reply-To: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A87@webmail.sensetech.no> References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A87@webmail.sensetech.no> Message-ID: <75977af3360d39bec1a141be5621e3bf@sympatico.ca> On Mar 18, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: snip// > ? > Having a hard time getting friends and family to adopt the same plan > and outlook for their own life. Any good advice on how to convince > people? It?s not a lack of knowledge, people know what is good and > bad, but they don?t seem to care. They don?t think they will get > cancer. They don?t think they will be the ones dying prematurely. > ? > IMO, it's not only denial. For some it's the deeply held but rarely explored belief that they're not worthy of a "good" life combined with an ambivalence towards living. You might also consider the possibility that most people can't imagine living an extra-long healthy and happy life. Though it seems to be slowly changing, for most people there aren't that many role models of really active and healthy older seniors. Josh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1047 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Sun Mar 18 18:53:17 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:53:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070317180042.03f4ac00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <45FD8A9D.9050002@thomasoliver.net> Keith Henson wrote: >At 05:07 PM 3/17/2007 +0000, you wrote: > > >>[...] >> >>You are relying on inbuilt hunter-gatherer instincts. But humans can >>divert their instincts into better endeavours. >> >> > >I feel that the chances of them being able to do so are much improved if >they understand their instincts. > In April and May of 1988 Analog published a two part essay by Michael Flynn called "The State of Psychohistory." I found it very illuminating on EP and it's had a powerful influence on my thinking ever since.. I started a search in back issue collections for it and when I find it I'll pass it on to you. Flynn made EP very understandable. -- Thomas From ben at goertzel.org Sun Mar 18 22:00:41 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:00:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070317184645.023d5988@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <45FDB689.8080407@goertzel.org> These arguments against psi on evolutionary grounds seem very silly to me. Obviously, if psi is real, it is a weak effect in humans and other biological systems. One could just as well argue "if magnetic homing is real, why isn't it used by all animals instead of just by a few species?" Indeed, the magnetic homing sense that some birds have would be useful for humans and lots of other animals http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4038179.stm but only a few animals have evolved it. Because of its limitations. We don't know what psi's limitations are, but if it's real, they are apparently very severe under familiar conditions involving biological systems. Presumably, once we understood psi better, we would be able to rationalize why it didn't evolve as a broader and more powerful force. -- Ben > > Of course there are feedback processes, but these lead to a dynamic > equilibrium, not usually elimination of the adaptive trait: vision > leads to camouflage which leads to better vision, and so on. If ESP > were possible, it would be as useful as a sense like vision, if not > more so, and we should expect to see evidence of it everywhere in > nature, just as vision has evolved independently many times. Moreover, > we should expect that it will become increasingly refined and powerful > through evolutionary competition, just as other senses have. > > Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 01:14:34 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:14:34 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070317184645.023d5988@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/19/07, gts wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:45:52 -0400, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > I'm a skeptic about this subject too, but I'm afraid I don't find your > argument above very convincing. It is at least conceivable that ESP is a > brand new experiment of evolution. > > ESP *might* be present now but at such low frequency that we can't yet > determine it to be real with p < .05 or with p < .01 (or with p at > whatever is your preferred threshold of statistical significance, which is > > after all only a matter of convention). Everything has to start somewhere, and maybe as Ben says there are physical limitations to the strength of ESP. Nevertheless, unless it has just started sporadically appearing in humans in the last few decades, we should have noticed a trend of increasing prevalence, and increasing strength if this does not contravene some physical limit, in historical times. It would actually be easier to accept that ESP is possible, but simply hasn't evolved yet in humans, if there were no claims that people today have it. It's not a knock-down argument, but arguments from evolution rarely are. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 19 01:44:06 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:44:06 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070317184645.023d5988@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070318202339.022710e8@satx.rr.com> At 12:14 PM 3/19/2007 +1100, Stathis wrote: >unless it has just started sporadically appearing in humans in the >last few decades, we should have noticed a trend of increasing >prevalence, and increasing strength if this does not contravene some >physical limit, in historical times. First look at the public scientific evidence, then try shoveling it into your favorite theory. One bundle of evidence suggests an apparent cyclicity in psi effect size mapping to sidereal time; another suggests a long term decline in protocol effectivity that turns upward again after several decades. It is conceivable that the psi vector (if this is an appropriate model) is intermittent, and that adaptation to this weak vehicle uses it as ancillary to more reliable electromagnetic and impact vehicles. None of this offends against reason. (Here's a silly example of a partial explanation: there is a lode of kryptonite inside Halley's comet, and organisms can with difficulty--using a spandrelized vermiform appendix--detect and modulate its weak dark energy radiation for telepathy, precognition and enhanced sex appeal. It gets blocked by the turning earth, and there's an inverse square law that causes irruptions of mediumistic activity every 70 years or so as the comet swings by. Yes, this explains one mystery by another, but it took quantum theory to explain radioactivity.) Obvious gibes on the lines of "Oh, psi `declines' because the cheats are found out and precautions improve" simply don't fit the extant evidence. What concerns me in this... um... "debate" is too benign a word... is the very widely held assumption that any objection an intelligent person can think up in a minute of two must be utterly amazing and devastating to an equally intelligent parapsychologist who's been working in this discipline for decades. Look at the data, then come up with the cool explanations. Damien Broderick From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Mon Mar 19 01:53:30 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:53:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A87@webmail.sensetech.no> Message-ID: <45FDED1A.4060800@thomasoliver.net> Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > [...] > > Having a hard time getting friends and family to adopt the same [life > extention] plan and outlook for their own life. Any good advice on how > to convince people? It?s not a lack of knowledge, people know what is > good and bad, but they don?t seem to care. They don?t think they will > get cancer. They don?t think they will be the ones dying prematurely. > Welcome, Sondre. I suggest you keep loving your friends and family and forget about changing them. Quotes follow from a laughable little book I love: " . . . when we emphasize a positive, we are at the same time creating a negative. When we choose an ideal of knowledge, then we must deal with the ignorance that is other than the knowledge . . . we tend to return to the vibration level where we feel stable, something we can "live with." It's the level of stability, the level where we feel ourselves to be comfortably on the same vibration with others . . . " Read Golas' chapter on Self Improvement . -- Thomas From pgptag at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 04:34:20 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:34:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <2045.163.1.72.81.1174244595.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> <2045.163.1.72.81.1174244595.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <470a3c520703182134p9da9bccq80cfd29db11939e6@mail.gmail.com> So would I Anders. Just trying to cover all bases. Clarke-Baxter technique: seem workable if the underlying assumption of a high density distribution of micro wormholes in vacuum is correct. Robert: yes, magic physics. But remember that television would have been magic physics to Newton. One generation's magic is future generation's engineering (Clarke again). Motivation: perhaps the quickest thing is just resurrecting everyone. When I cook beans I just throw them all in the water without choosing the best ones. G. On 3/18/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > Damien Broderick wrote: > > > >>It's not clear to me that the > >>chances of being saved by future posthumans is > >>increased more, or even equally much, by a Ray > >>Kurzweil way of living, than/as for example by a > >>Mother Theresa way of being ? given that the > >>posthumans value altruism more than anything else. > > > > Only if posthumans are godschmucked idiots will > > they wish to retrieve Mother Teresa. I suggest > > you read Christopher Hitchens' book The Missionary Position. > > Or posthumans with a sarcastic sense of humour. "Hello madam. As you no > doubt know, you have been dead for 334 years. During this time, did you go > to heaven?" > > I think altruism is irrelevant as a "bait" for posthuman retrieval, as are > most other motivations. Uniqueness makes much more sense. The more unique, > interesting and tangled up in important things you are, the better. You > might also go for the trick suggested by Charles Sheffield in _Tomorrow > and Tomorrow_, where the protagonist deliberately set out to create > mysteries only he knew the truth about, and ensured that future historians > would know that he knew. > > But as Robert said, resurrection is unlikely to happen through > Clarke-Baxter wormholes. I would bet on massive brute-force constraint > calculations retrodicting the possible past, and that would create > resurrections of everybody. It still remains to ensure that you get fished > up from the simulator and given access to base reality if the posthumans > are not totally into ultra-altruism (or something more sinister, like > post-Jehova's Witnesses trying to convert *everybody* retroactively - the > mormons may baptise past generations, but the PJWs will try to get them to > join the church actively). > > I'd rather get to posthumanity by growing up into a posthuman than > becoming their pet. > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 19 05:34:39 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:34:39 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration [sic] was (Defenestration) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070317180042.03f4ac00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <45FD8A9D.9050002@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <009501c769e8$cccf3810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Would someone please tell me what is going on with the subject line of this thread? Perhaps I missed a crucial post. Defenestration is the act of throwing someone or something out of a window, and the term provided no little mirth to my pals and me back in the 1960s. A most peculiar word for a presumably most uncommon occurance! One encountes it in European history having to do with the 30 years war 1618-1648. The "Defenestration of Prague" was said, I've never understood exactly how seriously, as the cause of the war. I think it was the French ambassador in Prague who was unceremoniously thrown out of a 3rd story window, and worse, landed in an immense pile of cow dung. So if "defenestrate" means to throw something out of a window, then what word should we coin to mean shoving something up someone's nose? Or the act of yelling into your cell phone while being chased by dogs? Anyway, one can read all about it on wikipedia, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration Why did the previous thread use the same term? Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Defenestration > Keith Henson wrote: > >>At 05:07 PM 3/17/2007 +0000, you wrote: >> >> >>>[...] >>> >>>You are relying on inbuilt hunter-gatherer instincts. But humans can >>>divert their instincts into better endeavours. >>> >>> >> >>I feel that the chances of them being able to do so are much improved if >>they understand their instincts. >> > In April and May of 1988 Analog published a two part essay by Michael > Flynn called "The State of Psychohistory." I found it very illuminating > on EP and it's had a powerful influence on my thinking ever since.. I > started a search in back issue collections for it and when I find it > I'll pass it on to you. Flynn made EP very understandable. -- Thomas From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon Mar 19 05:56:42 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:56:42 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration [sic] was (Defenestration) In-Reply-To: <009501c769e8$cccf3810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070317180042.03f4ac00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <45FD8A9D.9050002@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070319005535.02c1f3e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:34 PM 3/18/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Would someone please tell me what is going on with the >subject line of this thread? Perhaps I missed a crucial post. It was the classical way to get rid of a dictator. Keith >Defenestration is the act of throwing someone or something out >of a window, and the term provided no little mirth to my pals >and me back in the 1960s. A most peculiar word for a >presumably most uncommon occurance! > >One encountes it in European history having to do with the >30 years war 1618-1648. The "Defenestration of Prague" >was said, I've never understood exactly how seriously, as >the cause of the war. I think it was the French ambassador >in Prague who was unceremoniously thrown out of a 3rd >story window, and worse, landed in an immense pile of >cow dung. So if "defenestrate" means to throw something >out of a window, then what word should we coin to mean >shoving something up someone's nose? Or the act of >yelling into your cell phone while being chased by dogs? > >Anyway, one can read all about it on wikipedia, of course: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration > >Why did the previous thread use the same term? > >Lee > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Thomas" >To: "ExI chat list" >Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:53 AM >Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Defenestration > > > > Keith Henson wrote: > > > >>At 05:07 PM 3/17/2007 +0000, you wrote: > >> > >> > >>>[...] > >>> > >>>You are relying on inbuilt hunter-gatherer instincts. But humans can > >>>divert their instincts into better endeavours. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>I feel that the chances of them being able to do so are much improved if > >>they understand their instincts. > >> > > In April and May of 1988 Analog published a two part essay by Michael > > Flynn called "The State of Psychohistory." I found it very illuminating > > on EP and it's had a powerful influence on my thinking ever since.. I > > started a search in back issue collections for it and when I find it > > I'll pass it on to you. Flynn made EP very understandable. -- Thomas > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From brian at posthuman.com Mon Mar 19 06:06:34 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:06:34 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today Message-ID: <45FE286A.1010709@posthuman.com> A year after their first launch failure, they are trying again. SpaceX is the "low cost" rocket company founded by one of the paypal guys, and they may very well be the ones who will be launching astronauts into space using their Dragon capsule concept when the space shuttle is mothballed soon. The first launch attempt this time will be today beginning at 4pm Pacific time. There is going to be a webcast again: "The flight readiness review conducted tonight shows all systems are go for a launch attempt at 4pm California time (11pm GMT) tomorrow (Monday). The webcast can be seen at http://spacex.com/webcast.php and will start at T-60 minutes. Please check back for updates, as the launch will be postponed if we have even the tiniest concern." It's quite likely it won't go off on time as they have added hundreds of extra pre-launch checks to their countdown software. http://spacex.com/ Here's a forum thread discussing it: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5101&start=271 -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From eugen at leitl.org Mon Mar 19 08:14:39 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:14:39 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <470a3c520703182134p9da9bccq80cfd29db11939e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> <2045.163.1.72.81.1174244595.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <470a3c520703182134p9da9bccq80cfd29db11939e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070319081439.GL1450@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 05:34:20AM +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > Clarke-Baxter technique: seem workable if the underlying assumption of > a high density distribution of micro wormholes in vacuum is correct. One hell of an assumption. Until we know the opposite, the information constituting our being leaks out of us at the speed of light, and is lost irreversibly. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 191 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Mar 19 10:28:20 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:28:20 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <20070319081439.GL1450@leitl.org> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> <2045.163.1.72.81.1174244595.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <470a3c520703182134p9da9bccq80cfd29db11939e6@mail.gmail.com> <20070319081439.GL1450@leitl.org> Message-ID: <59484.86.153.216.201.1174300100.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 05:34:20AM +0100, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > >> Clarke-Baxter technique: seem workable if the underlying assumption of >> a high density distribution of micro wormholes in vacuum is correct. > > One hell of an assumption. Until we know the opposite, the information > constituting our being leaks out of us at the speed of light, and > is lost irreversibly. Hmm, assuming we take them literally, could it be done? A wormhole likely has an information capacity < kc^4R^2/2G. A nanometer wormhole has a capacity of about 10^69 bits/s, so if we put one inside each synapse we could both scan it and remove the information. The scanning part is somewhat iffy, since it is not clear to me how to scan an entire synapse from a nanometer wormhole end (gamma ray radar?), but lets leave that handwaving. Another problem is the wormhole exotic matter: we would need 10^18 kg of exotic matter to maintain each of the 10^15 wormholes. Seen anybody's head distort spacetime like a supergiant star recently? But the showstopper is causality. There seem to be pretty good reasons to think that one cannot rearrange matter and energy to get a closed timelike curve, see http://aardvark.ucsd.edu/grad_conference/wuthrich.pdf and http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0111/0111054.pdf And scanning wormholes into the past will definitely be CTCs. BTW, if we have CTCs we can build NP-solving quantum computers: http://dabacon.org/home/papers/p17.pdf Back to the drawing board. I think it is easier to do the massive simulation approach. We know it should be doable to convert solar systems into computronium, and running at least a classical physics simulation of humanity backwards seems to be withing the ability of such a pile of computers. I'd like to think more on how to actually implement the simulation, but that is for another day. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 19 11:08:16 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:08:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Defenestration [sic] was (Defenestration) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314002453.0225d3c0@satx.rr.com> <45F78BA8.50207@pobox.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314005228.02289468@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070314135054.02412b30@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070314185347.03f55d10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070315111237.040943b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070316153016.03eccfe0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070317100515.03f39140@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070317180042.03f4ac00@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <45FD8A9D.9050002@thomasoliver.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20070319005535.02c1f3e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <00af01c76a17$10b555e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > [Lee wrote] > >>Would someone please tell me what is going on with the >>subject line of this thread? Perhaps I missed a crucial post. > > It was the classical way to get rid of a dictator. Okay. For those as clueless as I, see the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestration I do hope that no one is using this term simply as a substitute for deposing a dictator in general. It's meaning ought to remain specific to literally getting rid of one by throwing him or her out of a window or orifice and letting gravity do whatever dirty work remains. Lee From hemm at openlink.com.br Mon Mar 19 12:06:40 2007 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:06:40 -0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00de01c76a1f$0e225550$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Don't forget the simulation hypothesis. We can all be copies already. ----- Original Message ----- From: "TheMan" To: Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In Arthur C Clarke's and Stephen Baxter's "The Light Of Other Days", posthumans develop quantum technology that enables them to look back in time, through wormholes in spacetime, at whatever point in time and space they wish (but only all past time and up to their present time). For example, they can watch everything we all have done with our lives, even when we (thought we) were alone. Later on, this technology is further developed by future generations, posthumans, so that they can use it to copy all human beings who have ever lived, and "resurrect" them in the future (the time of those posthumans). By being (...) From eugen at leitl.org Mon Mar 19 12:13:04 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:13:04 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <00de01c76a1f$0e225550$fe00a8c0@cpd01> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00de01c76a1f$0e225550$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: <20070319121304.GH1450@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:06:40AM -0300, Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk) wrote: > Don't forget the simulation hypothesis. We can all be copies already. No, we can't. Not without infinite computing power. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 12:51:37 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:51:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <59484.86.153.216.201.1174300100.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> <2045.163.1.72.81.1174244595.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <470a3c520703182134p9da9bccq80cfd29db11939e6@mail.gmail.com> <20070319081439.GL1450@leitl.org> <59484.86.153.216.201.1174300100.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 3/19/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: [snip] > The scanning part is somewhat iffy, since it is not clear to me how to > scan an > entire synapse from a nanometer wormhole end (gamma ray radar?), but lets > leave that handwaving. Sigh. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Mon Mar 19 12:59:00 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:59:00 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070318120339.024b0320@satx.rr.com> <2045.163.1.72.81.1174244595.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <470a3c520703182134p9da9bccq80cfd29db11939e6@mail.gmail.com> <20070319081439.GL1450@leitl.org> <59484.86.153.216.201.1174300100.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <60189.86.153.216.201.1174309140.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Robert Bradbury wrote: > On 3/19/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > [snip] >> The scanning part is somewhat iffy, since it is not clear to me how to >> scan an >> entire synapse from a nanometer wormhole end (gamma ray radar?), but >> lets >> leave that handwaving. > > Sigh. I know, I really should start to think of how to do gamma ray diffraction from inside a synapse, the necessary energy output to get a decent signal to noise ratio, as well as calculate how many megatons of energy this uploading approach is going to release. (Talk about going to the future in style! Leaving by a CTC inside a nuclear/gravitic fireball!) But before we know how to upload well, I think uploading by wormhole will remain an area where the handwaving frequency reaches the ultrasonic range. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 16:11:23 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:11:23 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070317184645.023d5988@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:14:34 -0400, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > It would actually be easier to accept that ESP is possible, but simply > hasn't evolved yet in humans, if there were no claims that people today > have it. But of course it's not very likely we would be considering the question if there were no claims that people have it. I would suppose the majority of people have a story or two to tell about uncanny coincidences that seem to demand paranormal explanations. I certainly do, and they are the only reasons I haven't shut my mind completely to the possibility. I call these strange occurrences "synchronicities," a term I think I borrowed from David Bohm's theory about an 'implicate order'. However in my case the anecdotal evidence is growing aged... nothing so bizarre as to challenge conventional explanation has happened in my life in about the last 20 years. Over that time I have grown more cynical, such that I now count myself a skeptic on this subject. Yet, when I think back on those strange occurrences, they still manage to send chills up my spine. Damien, perhaps your forthcoming book will bring me back 'round to the other side. :) I haven't done any reading in this subject since I was a kid, mainly because I lost faith that any of the authors or researchers could be trusted. However I've read enough of your posts in recent years to grant you credibility. I trust you would never intentionally lead your readers astray merely to make a buck. Looking forward to the book! -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Mar 19 17:00:28 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:00:28 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Precognition In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A7C@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070317184645.023d5988@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070319115604.022b2ae8@satx.rr.com> At 12:11 PM 3/19/2007 -0400, gts wrote: >Damien, perhaps your forthcoming book will bring me back 'round to the >other side. :) .... I trust you would never intentionally lead your >readers astray merely to make a buck. A buck would be nice, but no--if I wanted to make dough by lying I'd write *Dark Matter Astrology: The Hidden Power of Dark Energy in Your Life!* Damien Broderick From sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no Mon Mar 19 17:44:53 2007 From: sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:44:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever In-Reply-To: <45FDED1A.4060800@thomasoliver.net> References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A87@webmail.sensetech.no> <45FDED1A.4060800@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0B73@webmail.sensetech.no> I love my friends and family and for that reason I want them to live a fuller, richer and better lifes. I'm willing to spend some time and energy to get them into this, cause if all it takes is a little patience and energy, I will get back a lot more. The longer my friends and family lives, the longer I will live. It's a good and positive circle. If all the people around me started dying, it would take years off my own life and I would be immensly depressed all the time. I read Golas' post and I can't stop feeling he is overly generalizing and I can't relate to much of what he says. It's obvious that you can't go around being negative all the time because others don't share your same ideas and vision. But it does bring me a lot of pleasure and enjoyment trying to explain and teach others in the same ways as myself. It's just one of the things I try to do, to keep mind fresh and challenged. I have a saying that goes like this: I've been wrong, but I'm always right. It's important to me to raise my friends' conciousness, on their own lifes and the world around them. I don't need everyone to agree with my own ideas, but I'd hate for people continue to be religious and have other fatal believes because they are to lazy, or nobody told them to think in other directions. Regards, Sondre -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:54 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > [...] > > Having a hard time getting friends and family to adopt the same [life > extention] plan and outlook for their own life. Any good advice on how > to convince people? It's not a lack of knowledge, people know what is > good and bad, but they don't seem to care. They don't think they will > get cancer. They don't think they will be the ones dying prematurely. > Welcome, Sondre. I suggest you keep loving your friends and family and forget about changing them. Quotes follow from a laughable little book I love: " . . . when we emphasize a positive, we are at the same time creating a negative. When we choose an ideal of knowledge, then we must deal with the ignorance that is other than the knowledge . . . we tend to return to the vibration level where we feel stable, something we can "live with." It's the level of stability, the level where we feel ourselves to be comfortably on the same vibration with others . . . " Read Golas' chapter on Self Improvement . -- Thomas _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ********************************************************************** This e-mail has been scanned for viruses and found clean. ********************************************************************** From scerir at libero.it Mon Mar 19 18:06:49 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:06:49 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] 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> Message-ID: <002b01c76a51$5dbfbad0$0fba1f97@archimede> Damien: > Dr. Evan Harris Walker and others did something along these lines, > trying (as I recall) to modify interference fringes; there are > disputes in the literature over the outcome, but I'm inclined to > think that no such effect was seen. Ah, well. 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. There are several problems, or difficulties, with the principles of conservation here, due to that action at a distance, but this is another story. (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. But I do not think that pre- or retrocognition implement tricks like the above. From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Mon Mar 19 20:02:26 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:02:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever References: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0A87@webmail.sensetech.no> <45FDED1A.4060800@thomasoliver.net> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0B73@webmail.sensetech.no> Message-ID: <45FEEC52.5080000@thomasoliver.net> Sondre Bjell?s wrote: >I love my friends and family and for that reason I want them to live a fuller, richer and better lifes. I'm willing to spend some time and energy to get them into this, cause if all it takes is a little patience and energy, I will get back a lot more. The longer my friends and family lives, the longer I will live. It's a good and positive circle. [...] > That sounds like a refreshingly expanded sense of identity. -- gently, Thomas From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 20:03:37 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:03:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> On 3/14/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > But, with self-modification there will be much more profound > > differences in productivity. The mind that builds itself to do nothing > > but to maximize access to resources, and to multiply as quickly as > > possible, ideally adapted to the year year 2030, will not have a > > "slight" edge in economic fitness over those still adapted to the year > > 200 000 BC - it will be a gaping chasm. > > So you claim. Are there any good evidence for this? I think it would be > worthwhile to check with economists for example of how much an advantage a > fully economically rational workaholic would have over an ordinary worker, > as well as what kinds of enhancements are likely to be how powerful. There > is a lot of assumptions here we can play around with, and it would be nice > to have some basis for our intuitions. ### Well, let's consider how much time does the ordinary worker devote to maximizing access to resources and to procreation: On average, most humans work less than 5 hours a day - after subtracting the emailing, daydreaming, schmoozing and other activities that occupy a large part of the nominal workday. Of the resources gained by the average citizen of a developed country only a small fraction is devoted to survival and procreation. You could easily survive on less than 3 000 $ a year and use the rest for producing offspring, but almost nobody does that here. Its fully survival and procreation-oriented competitor could work perhaps 16 hours a day, make 3 times the money and at least 10 times the offspring, even assuming no additional advantages aside from work ethic. For now, our situation is highly unusual in evolutionary terms - we have a generation time much slower than the rate of acquisition of resources, and leftover adaptations that actually *reduce* the number of offspring as we get richer above a certain point. This is responsible for the increase in resources per capita in the past 200 years but it will change soon - just wait until the average time to produce a new generation of offspring changes from 25 years to 25 minutes, or however long it takes to copy a really big hard disk. At this junction the optimized mind, unless constrained by very powerful legal or other bonds, will take over. ---------------------------------------- > > > The speed with which you will be able to adapt yourself to the > > prevailing conditions will no longer be limited by the snail's pace of > > evolution - you will be able to adapt as soon as you understand what > > is needed, work out the mods to your mind, and reboot. In other words, > > the posthuman minds could be in evolutionary equilibrium all the time. > > Assuming working out what is needed takes less time than it takes for the > economic state to change. That is a pretty tricky assumption. > > If we make the analogy of professions, today I can figure out my ideal > profession, get training for that and have a reasonable likeliehood (say > 50%) that it has not changed beyond recognition in the meantime. A few > decades and centuries earlier it was even more likely. So currently we are > seeing the reverse trend: fewer and fewer people work in exactly the job > they optimized themselves for. Increasing the ability to adapt and learn > may help, but that will in itself speed up change in the economy. > > My guess is in fact that a posthuman civilisation will always be in > evolutionary disequilibrium. > ### I have said "evolutionary disequilibrium" in a bit vague way. Let me elaborate: there are certain situations when the frequency of alleles changes only very slowly across generations. Deleterious alleles are removed at the same speed as they appear, alleles responsible for various strategies are present in constant ratios, or sometimes oscillate around an attractor. This is an evolutionary equilibrium. A disequilibrium occurs usually when the environment (including other species) changes significantly. In this situation the frequency of alleles starts rapidly changing, with a velocity dependent on the selective pressures and the diversity of alleles. After some time the system arrives at a new equilibrium, with new alleles at different frequencies. A special case of disequilibrium occurs when a new ecological niche is reached - when the slow accumulation of change allows at some point a totally new way of life, for example when the development of tracheae allowed the proto-insects to crawl out on land that no creature crawled on before. During the period of colonization of the niche many adaptations, specific to the ancestral niche, become maladaptive and their alleles are soon removed. I believe that we are in evolutionary disequilibrium caused by evolution of language, and more recently the complex societies capable of supporting science. The changes in our environment are profound, and therefore most of what our genes tell us to do on a daily basis are actions that are totally maladaptive as measured by the fitness function. It took only a few decades (invention of the condom, later the contraceptive pill, ) to sever the connection between the vast majority of sexual acts and procreation - conventional mammalian evolution may take centuries to reshape our minds around this development. But, unless evolution itself is abrogated (by a singleton AI or other mechanisms), the relevant alleles will be eventually removed, bringing the minds into equilibrium again. Now, a disequilibrium as described above can only persist if the rate of change of the environment is significantly higher than the speed of removal of outdated alleles. Given self-modification, removal of maladaptive alleles could be six orders of magnitude higher than in normal mammalian evolution. To persist in disequilibrium the posthuman economy would have to experience dramatic jumps in efficiency, equivalent to the invention of language and the scientific method, every few generations of posthumans, or once every few hours. I tend to think that this is highly unlikely. Rafal From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Mon Mar 19 22:21:13 2007 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:21:13 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today In-Reply-To: <45FE286A.1010709@posthuman.com> References: <45FE286A.1010709@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <4902d9990703191521n7f763734uce3ec7765f32fee1@mail.gmail.com> The webcast is online, with some issues (no sound, timer stuck at T+29sec) Alfio From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon Mar 19 23:46:08 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 16:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <62c14240703081451r64ac42cndb651e781629d818@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <560486.18988.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Mike, I apologize for the very long delay, I've been away from a computer. You raise some very interesting questions. I like to think of nothing as "something in potential" or even "anything in potential". The short version of what I imagine nothing is, is the total lack of all rules (eg. no rules of math, physics, logic, etc.) and the total absence of any subsequent entities (eg. matter, energy, time, etc.). In other words, I think of nothing as infinite potential, so to speak. But, I have amended my personal "definition" of nothing. If we "define" nothing as (1)-the absence of all rules/entities, then we must allow that even this rule (1) cannot be self-applied to nothingness. So now I think of nothingness as allowing the "coexistence" of "existing" entities, without itself becoming compromised. I also think this sits a little better with the hypothesized nothingness-as-background idea. I don't believe this invalidates the (1 : Infinity) probability argument, but that's just my opinion. Mike writes: "if something is that which is known, and it's > opposite (nothing) is > the unknown - can that which is unknown be explored > to give rise to > new realms of the knowable?" I believe that it can. We have created huge amounts of testable knowledge without having a complete understanding of the Universe (where a great deal still remains unknown) or a complete understanding of even a single atom, which both embody the exact same set of fundamental physical laws. But I would maybe define "something" as that which is partially known, and nothing as that which is partially unknown. Perhaps to a very large extent unknown :-) But, I think we'll eventually be able to widdle-away the unknown to a very small quantity. As a potential example of knowledge gained from nothingness: If you choose to believe that nothingness either once existed or continues to exist (in the background) then it offers insights into our own Universe. Eg. If nothingness is also devoid of time, then why is our Universe only 15 billion years old (as the empirical evidence suggests)? IOW, if nothingness is devoid of a chronology, or a time "flow", then why *isn't* our Universe either infinitely old (or nearly so)? With nothingness having no chronology, then intuition would suggest that all the Universes that do exist should have been born simultaneously and all of them should be infinitely old (or very nearly infinitely old). The believe of nothingness narrows down the possible explanations for this inconsistency. For example, our Universe may only be 15 billion years old, because it follows an inexorable cycle of Big Bangs to Big Crunches (I personally find that extremely unlikely, but maybe that's just because I don't like the idea. Seriously though, I *really* don't believe this is the case.). If this were the case, then we would have gained knowledge about the inexorable fate of our Universe (Then again, I do like Tipler's Omega-Point idea). Another possible explanation is that baby Universes are eventually spawned from the black holes of parent Universes like the physicist Lee Smolin believes. This is the hypothesis that I like the most, and if this is the correct explanation then it opens up another can-o-worms, and so on. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --- Mike Dougherty wrote: > On 3/6/07, A B wrote: > > > > Although if one wanted to be pedantic about it, > one > > might argue that even mathematics cannot exist in > the > > void of nothingness, but only as a product of > creation > > so to speak. I hope perpetuating this thread > doesn't > > annoy too many people :-) > > is that void the absense of something, or the > something in potential? > > if something is that which is known, and it's > opposite (nothing) is > the unknown - can that which is unknown be explored > to give rise to > new realms of the knowable? In that case the void > would represent > potential for something to become manifest, while at > the same time be > defined as what remains unknown after some potential > is made 'real' > > clearly, it doesn't annoy me. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 From brian at posthuman.com Tue Mar 20 00:11:54 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:11:54 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today In-Reply-To: <4902d9990703191521n7f763734uce3ec7765f32fee1@mail.gmail.com> References: <45FE286A.1010709@posthuman.com> <4902d9990703191521n7f763734uce3ec7765f32fee1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45FF26CA.4050408@posthuman.com> Alfio Puglisi wrote: > The webcast is online, with some issues (no sound, timer stuck at T+29sec) > > Alfio > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Got close, 1 minute left, but scrubbed due apparently to a radio communications problem between rocket and range. Sounds like they may try again in 24 to 48 hrs if they can fix it. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 00:48:03 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:48:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <560486.18988.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <62c14240703081451r64ac42cndb651e781629d818@mail.gmail.com> <560486.18988.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240703191748l309c517bh1c3c42432d48aa74@mail.gmail.com> On 3/19/07, A B wrote: > set of fundamental physical laws. But I would maybe > define "something" as that which is partially known, > and nothing as that which is partially unknown. this definition causes a contradiction - any amount of the known about a thing makes it cease to be no-thing. > it offers insights into our own Universe. Eg. If > nothingness is also devoid of time, then why is our > Universe only 15 billion years old (as the empirical > evidence suggests)? IOW, if nothingness is devoid of a > chronology, or a time "flow", then why *isn't* our > Universe either infinitely old (or nearly so)? With it is not devoid of time - just that time is an arbitrary dimension out of which something measurable becomes observable. There is also an interpretation that this universe is only a moment, but that it instantiates with a memory we may interpret as 15 billion years. Perhaps the universe appears to be this old because that's how long it takes for stateful information to propogate through the medium that consciousness inhabits. Once every action/reaction is resolved, the event ceases to exist? (inclusive of recursive reaction to reaction, etc. possibly the stack is still creating new instances without have reached the base condition) From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 01:11:46 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:11:46 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> References: <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/20/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > I believe that we are in evolutionary disequilibrium caused by > evolution of language, and more recently the complex societies capable > of supporting science. The changes in our environment are profound, > and therefore most of what our genes tell us to do on a daily basis > are actions that are totally maladaptive as measured by the fitness > function. It took only a few decades (invention of the condom, later > the contraceptive pill, ) to sever the connection between the vast > majority of sexual acts and procreation - conventional mammalian > evolution may take centuries to reshape our minds around this > development. But, unless evolution itself is abrogated (by a singleton > AI or other mechanisms), the relevant alleles will be eventually > removed, bringing the minds into equilibrium again. What would it mean to abrogate evolution? Arguably it has already happened: we are more concerned with our happiness, which for evolution is just a means to an end, rather than for example maximising family size. Economic and technological success has taken over as the main driving force of our species, and the time-honoured natural selection driving genetic change has more or less stopped. If the weather gets colder, those humans who survive will be the ones who can build warmer habitats, not those who are hairier. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 20 01:55:58 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:55:58 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> At 12:11 PM 3/20/2007 +1100, Stathis wrote: >What would it mean to abrogate evolution? Arguably it has already >happened: we are more concerned with our happiness, which for >evolution is just a means to an end, rather than for example >maximising family size. *Not* "maximizing", unless you add situational provisos (we're K, not r). "Optimizing" might be better, but that's dangerously teleological. "Good-enough-izing" is what I'd call it. Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 03:00:30 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:00:30 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> References: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/20/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 12:11 PM 3/20/2007 +1100, Stathis wrote: > > >What would it mean to abrogate evolution? Arguably it has already > >happened: we are more concerned with our happiness, which for > >evolution is just a means to an end, rather than for example > >maximising family size. > > *Not* "maximizing", unless you add situational provisos (we're K, not > r). "Optimizing" might be better, but that's dangerously > teleological. "Good-enough-izing" is what I'd call it. Sure, but in a sense contraception is already an example of what has been discussed earlier in this thread, decoupling pleasure from its original biological purpose and pursuing it as an end in itself. Let me say that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, or with taking drugs, or with engineering your mind for pleasure. People still want to have children because many see it as a worthwhile goal in its own right. Stathis Papaionnou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Tue Mar 20 03:22:35 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:22:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200703200340.l2K3eC3H000730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > >maximising family size. > > *Not* "maximizing", unless you add situational provisos (we're K, not > r). "Optimizing" might be better, but that's dangerously > teleological. "Good-enough-izing" is what I'd call it. > > Damien Broderick Would that be called adequatizing? Or perhaps medianizing? From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 20 03:49:47 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:49:47 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Good-enough-izing" In-Reply-To: <200703200340.l2K3eC3H000730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> <200703200340.l2K3eC3H000730@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070319224529.02186e58@satx.rr.com> At 08:22 PM 3/19/2007 -0700, Spike wrote: > > *Not* "maximizing", unless you add situational provisos (we're K, not > > r). "Optimizing" might be better, but that's dangerously > > teleological. "Good-enough-izing" is what I'd call it. > >Would that be called adequatizing? Or perhaps medianizing? No. I was playing on the (in some quarters famous) coinage by the object relations psychologist D. W. Winnicot of "good-enough mothering". Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 20 03:53:57 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:53:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] "Good-enough-izing" Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070319225258.02230588@satx.rr.com> Or better still: D. W. Winnicott (two t's) of "good-enough mothering". Damien Broderick From scerir at libero.it Tue Mar 20 07:12:54 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:12:54 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] ART: halosim References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070319225258.02230588@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002c01c76abf$4807d880$91901f97@archimede> http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/halfeat.htm From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 10:56:10 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:56:10 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20070318162021.22507.qmail@web51903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0703200356t2805a768o926abed6cc3e8bd2@mail.gmail.com> Ok, Altruism as a bait, or originality as a bait, or extremes of personality/behaviour generally. I'm thinking emulating Manfred Macx would be the way to go. A Venture Altruist in today's world would fit all of the above. But you'll have to find a way to stop/limit anyone following in your footsteps. Plus, smearing mud on Charlie Stross's good name would probably increase your chances (not very altruistic I know, but hey, this *is* immortality we're talking about)... Emlyn (I think I blew it with that post. Maybe I'll be resurrected as "world's biggest damn fool") On 19/03/07, TheMan wrote: > > In Arthur C Clarke's and Stephen Baxter's "The Light > Of Other Days", posthumans develop quantum technology > that enables them to look back in time, through [snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 10:58:35 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:58:35 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Mullis In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070316172609.02275dc8@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070308114540.023a9958@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070309174315.024b6500@satx.rr.com> <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0928@webmail.sensetech.no> <7.0.1.0.2.20070315172201.022a3ea8@satx.rr.com> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316172609.02275dc8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0703200358w296dafdfs1a304ee7010a0278@mail.gmail.com> ...being a low communitarian anarchist... Is this newspeak for commie? In tx no less.... Emlyn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Tue Mar 20 12:24:49 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:24:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Arresting Stem Cells May Trump Tumor Shrinkage in Rating Cancer Treatments, Researcher Says Message-ID: <003a01c76aea$c1d80600$24893cd1@pavilion> >From http://www.nccn.org/about/news/newsinfo.asp?NewsID=103 "Failure to recognize the role of stem cells in metastasis may have led cancer researchers up ?blind alleys? in countless clinical trials, said Max S. Wicha, M.D., founding director and distinguished professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, speaking at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network?s 12th Annual Conference. "With tumor shrinkage the primary guidepost of any new treatment, valuable therapies may be aborted too early in their experimental life, he said. At the same time, clinical-trial measurements that focus only on a tumor?s diminishing size may explain why some new therapeutic treatments have failed to work. If the tumor?s stem cells run amok even as the tumor?s girth diminishes, a patients? life may be at stake. "The answer? Begin monitoring whether chemotherapy and radiation treatments work to arrest cancer?s stem cells and their progenitors ? i.e., those cells that can make exact copies of themselves and ?differentiate? to play specific roles. Then find ways to make chemotherapy and radiation treatments more powerfully target the tumor?s stem cells while sparing healthy stem cells the body needs. "?In any organ, the stem cells give rise to all the other cells,? Wicha explained. ?This process in the body is normally highly regulated.? He and his colleagues at the University of Michigan School of Medicine speculate that cancer arises because of some disruption during the self-renewal or differentiation process. "In tracking the origins of cancer, the common ?stochastic model? holds that any of the body?s cells can mutate and begin growing wildly. In contrast, the ?cancer stem-cell model,? with its emphasis on stem cells being the only locus of cancer, reactivates a 100-year-old theory, Wicha said. Flow cytometry and other sophisticated laboratory methods have allowed the hypothesis to be tested. ?Within cancer, are stem cells driving the malignancy?? Wicha asked, framing the current evolution of cancer stem-cell research." This sounds pretty interesting and might explain the seemingly slow progress in cancer research. Regards, Dan From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 12:30:40 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:30:40 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Arresting Stem Cells May Trump Tumor Shrinkage in Rating Cancer Treatments, Researcher Says In-Reply-To: <003a01c76aea$c1d80600$24893cd1@pavilion> References: <003a01c76aea$c1d80600$24893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: I've read a paper or two on this and the idea has merit. Open to question is whether one has a stem cell gone bad or whether one has a cancer cell activating stem cell genes. As an interesting aside, I just looked at the genes in the cancer genome anatomy project and it looks like they are tracking 1519 genes (these are the genes found to be mutated in vivo in cancers). Of course the common culprits, KRAS, BRAF, HRAS, EGFR, APC, KIT, RB, FGFR, are among the top 20 in terms of number of different mutations (presumably they have more locations which can be disrupted and result in uncontrolled growth). Though the recent Nature on work by the project (Greenman et al 2007) felt that there were 120 kinase genes that served as "drivers" for the development of cancers [1]. The problem with the stem cell theory, in spite of what the cited article says, is that it doesn't provide you with many new therapy options. Many chemotherapeutic agents are designed to disrupt stem cell division (which is why you have side effects like nausea (stomach and intestinal stem cell disruption), hair loss (hair stem cell disruption), decline in blood cell counts (bone marrow stem cell disruption), etc. If anything it suggests that one will need more intense, or longer, chemotherapies to kill off all of the stem cells. The only way out of this is going to be more complex targeted chemotherapies designed to seek out and kill specific types of stem cells (some of which people are labeling as "nanomedicine" -- presumably to attract funding). Those are coming but they are going to take some time and they aren't going to be cheap magic bullets. Robert 1. Though the numbers are large, the good side of this is that we do have current technologies to design chips that would be able to rapidly survey this number of genes and determine precisely which are mutated. This in turn allows one to develop targeted therapies. But there are very few physicians currently equipped to do these types of tests and use the resulting information productively. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Tue Mar 20 12:36:16 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:36:16 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? Message-ID: <61576.86.153.216.201.1174394176.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Emlyn wrote: > Ok, Altruism as a bait, or originality as a bait, or extremes of > personality/behaviour generally. Hmm, let's play a little game. Assume we can resurrect people *today* from the past for a certain sum of money. Who would you or your society want to resurrect if the cost was one billion dollars per person? One million dollars? A thousand dollars? One dollar? A thousand people per dollar? A million? A billion? For the most expensive cases my answer is of course that I would not resurrect anybody because I can't afford it. On the other hand, to a society spending a sizeable sum for a very important person might be worth it. It might be hard for Turkey to resist resurrecting Ataturk. As the price comes down to the million mark, it becomes cost-effective to resurrect recent dead since the actuarial value of a life is a few million. Long before that astronauts and people willing to risk their lives in important ventures might get it as a kind of insurance. By now resurrecting organisational heroes becomes possible and attractive: why not bring back Edison for the company luncheon? And various academic projects can afford to bring back subjects for information. Historical celebrieties would probably be worthwhile investments. Just imagine Oscar Wilde on TV. When the cost is down to thousands of dollars people would start resurrecting family members, historians would sample populations etc. By now we would see more ordinary people, resurrected just because remaining social bonds or because they were typical. Assuming resurectees can get jobs and join the normal economy they too would soon be bringing back their dear departed. At some cost we would get a kind of percolation effect where everybody resurects the previous generation, all the way back to Grog the caveman (he didn't like his family, so it ends there). This of course ignores reality (where to room all the Romans? how many more sumerian-run pizza parlours do we need?) and the main problem, that we likely cannot resurrect just one chosen person at a time, but need a big simulation involving millions or billions of others - who could be resurrected for no extra cost. But overall, the lession seems to be that once the cost goes down enough resurrection becomes ubiqitious. If our posthuman descendants are not too interested, some future resurectees might be anyway. So if resurections happen, they are likely global. But it might still be fun to end up on a posthuman talkshow. "Yes Oprah^7i94, I was indeed on the extropians list when somebody suggested the framistrang. Of course it was in the context of a flamewar about religion, so nobody took it seriously. I was *amazed* by what you have used it for! Just the food and spaceflight applications blows my mind, but my contemporaries would have been... er, I mean, will be even more amazed by its use in sleep engineering." > (I think I blew it with that post. Maybe I'll be resurrected as "world's > biggest damn fool") OmegaAgent Green Camera: "Well, Emlyn-606, you are indeed the world's biggest damn fool, but only of your own world. In world 607 it is Mikhail Bakhta and world 608 Yue Chan Li. The current recordholder i Timothy W. Blackspring Jr. from world 3438 (dropped a strangelet into the Earth's core as part of a *bad* comic routine), but we do not believe there is any supremum over the set of all worlds. So we are confident that we will find fools transcendentally more stupid than you over time!" -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 20 15:13:17 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:13:17 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] anarchist In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0703200358w296dafdfs1a304ee7010a0278@mail.gmail.co m> 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> <003701c767f2$b8c42f80$d30e4e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316135450.023feaf8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070316172609.02275dc8@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0703200358w296dafdfs1a304ee7010a0278@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070320100859.02167db0@satx.rr.com> At 09:58 PM 3/20/2007 +1100, Emlyn wrote: >...being a low communitarian anarchist... > >Is this newspeak for commie? Uh, no. What?! From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 20 15:04:19 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:04:19 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> References: <60187.86.153.216.201.1173743345.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070320093900.040b6018@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:55 PM 3/19/2007 -0500, you wrote: >At 12:11 PM 3/20/2007 +1100, Stathis wrote: > > >What would it mean to abrogate evolution? Arguably it has already > >happened: we are more concerned with our happiness, which for > >evolution is just a means to an end, rather than for example > >maximising family size. > >*Not* "maximizing", unless you add situational provisos (we're K, not >r). "Optimizing" might be better, but that's dangerously >teleological. "Good-enough-izing" is what I'd call it. In the EEA it was maximizing, but not family size, it is maximizing the number of surviving, reproducing children. To that end hunter gatherer peoples practice infanticide when a just born younger sib would threaten the survival of an older but still nursing child. See the Azar Gat paper. I suspect that paper is too long for a lot of people on this list. I could cut it up and paste in small sections if you want. Keith From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 17:50:34 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:50:34 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> On 3/19/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 3/20/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > I believe that we are in evolutionary disequilibrium caused by > > evolution of language, and more recently the complex societies capable > > of supporting science. The changes in our environment are profound, > > and therefore most of what our genes tell us to do on a daily basis > > are actions that are totally maladaptive as measured by the fitness > > function. It took only a few decades (invention of the condom, later > > the contraceptive pill, ) to sever the connection between the vast > > majority of sexual acts and procreation - conventional mammalian > > evolution may take centuries to reshape our minds around this > > development. But, unless evolution itself is abrogated (by a singleton > > AI or other mechanisms), the relevant alleles will be eventually > > removed, bringing the minds into equilibrium again. > > > What would it mean to abrogate evolution? Arguably it has already happened: > we are more concerned with our happiness, which for evolution is just a > means to an end, rather than for example maximising family size. Economic > and technological success has taken over as the main driving force of our > species, and the time-honoured natural selection driving genetic change has > more or less stopped. If the weather gets colder, those humans who survive > will be the ones who can build warmer habitats, not those who are hairier. > ### Evolution occurs whenever selection forces act on populations of non-identical individuals, capable of accumulating changes to their characteristics, and transmitting such changes to the next generation. The subjective experiences of these individuals are not relevant to the issue, except insofar as they are related to differential fitness. We are still subject to this process, although the severity of selection appears to be for the time lessened. Of course, substitution of economic or technological success for physical characteristics such as hair, as the variable acted on by evolution, does not stop evolution, merely redirects it. Natural selection still continues to occur, since there is clearly differential fitness as measured by the number of surviving offspring among humans. Evolution would be abrogated only if there was no selection, and no differential fitness, or if variability was removed from the population and prevented from appearing again. A singleton AI could perhaps institute such a regime, by preventing death and simultaneously by limiting or regulating procreation. It is interesting to note that we may be undergoing a transition from a Darwinian evolution to an almost exclusively Lamarckian mode. Acquired and desired characteristics will become heritable and will provide the vast majority of the variability between individuals that is necessary for selection to occur. Rafal From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Mar 20 16:52:32 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:52:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070320093900.040b6018@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070320093900.040b6018@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 3/20/07, Keith Henson wrote: > At 08:55 PM 3/19/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >At 12:11 PM 3/20/2007 +1100, Stathis wrote: > > > > >What would it mean to abrogate evolution? Arguably it has already > > >happened: we are more concerned with our happiness, which for > > >evolution is just a means to an end, rather than for example > > >maximising family size. > > > >*Not* "maximizing", unless you add situational provisos (we're K, not > >r). "Optimizing" might be better, but that's dangerously > >teleological. "Good-enough-izing" is what I'd call it. > > In the EEA it was maximizing, but not family size, it is maximizing the > number of surviving, reproducing children. To that end hunter gatherer > peoples practice infanticide when a just born younger sib would threaten > the survival of an older but still nursing child. Am I the only one who feels something akin to the screeching of fingernails on a blackboard when someone blithely ascribes actions to "goals" that would require an impossibly objective point of view? Yes? Then I'll try to keep my comments to a minimum. "To that end hunter gatherer peoples practice infanticide..." implies a teleological purpose that clearly isn't. Suggest: "Therefore/For that reason (not purpose) hunter-gatherer peoples practice infanticide..." It's the same kind of implicit context confusion that leads to perennial misunderstanding of consciousness, free-will etc., goals/supergoals in AI, and much of the PHIL101 discussion that often dominates these lists. Arghh! ;-) - Jef From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Mar 20 17:58:11 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:58:11 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times book review: I Am a Strange Loop - Hofstadter Message-ID: <17561539.587731174413491169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Hello All -- It will be obvious why I posted this. Hofstadter is writing about consciousness and empathy. Any one read this book yet? Brain dead with flu, but trying to mess with text to see if Eudora (and archive) readers no longer have run-on lines. [Damien -- let me know if you can read this normally.] PJ http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-cohen18mar18,0,7388658,print.htmlstory?coll=cl-bookreview BOOK REVIEW 'I Am a Strange Loop' by Douglas Hofstadter On the nature of human consciousness and its relation to empathy. By Jesse Cohen March 18, 2007 I Am a Strange Loop Douglas Hofstadter Basic Books: 412 pp., $26.95 "The phonographs of hades in the brain / are tunnels that re-wind themselves...." Hart Crane may have been thinking of other things when he wrote these lines from "The Bridge," but they accord nicely with the ideas and obsessions of Douglas Hofstadter. For close to 30 years, ever since his remarkable debut with the bestselling "G?del, Escher, Bach," Hofstadter has been developing a model of consciousness holding that the brain is a system of "tunnels that re-wind themselves," turning recursively inward to create what we think of as our selves. Hofstadter's explanation of how brain becomes mind dispenses with immaterial qualities and other kinds of philosophical hocus-pocus that bedevil efforts to solve the "mind-body problem." Trained as a physicist and a computer scientist but endowed with the soul of a philosopher, he posits that as our neurons fire in complex patterns that represent our perceptions, and as these representations (or symbols) swirl and dance in ever more complex ways, their interplay is strong enough and rich enough to produce awareness ? that is, to become self-referential. This concept of self-reference allows Hofstadter to bring in the work of famed logician Kurt G?del, who proved the incompleteness of sufficiently powerful mathematical systems. The human brain is a system of symbols, and a system of symbols is just what a mathematical language is ? the kind of language that G?del proved could generate self-referential statements. In "G?del, Escher, Bach," Hofstadter called this process of recursive self-representation ? think of an Escher staircase, feeding endlessly into itself, or the lyrics to "The Windmills of Your Mind" ? a "strange loop." And this strange loop constitutes the illusion (yes, the illusion) of consciousness, or the self, or "I" ? terms that, for Hofstadter, are interchangeable. Hence, "I Am a Strange Loop." (Hofstadter muses in the introduction, "I should probably have called it ' "I" Is a Strange Loop' ? but can you imagine a clunkier title?") His new book is an amplification and extension of the central thesis of "G?del, Escher, Bach," which he felt compelled to revisit: "People liked [it] for all sorts of reasons, but seldom if ever for its most central raison d'?tre." That is, they grooved on his rich tapestry of fugues and formulas, hypotheticals and counterfactuals, Zen and Zeno, DNA and AI, but may well have missed his point about what consciousness is. The marvel of "G?del, Escher, Bach" was not just its abundant insights or its author's infectious joie de savoir and range of reference, which cheerfully demolished the wall between novelist C.P. Snow's "two cultures." Rather, it was that the book itself, with its diverse modes of discourse and stack of nested arguments, modeled the very processes of self-referentiality and "loopiness" occurring in our brains. There was an experiential component to it: How a reader encountered the text was as important to the effectiveness of its argument as the words were. Something similar is afoot in "I Am a Strange Loop." Once again, the method of argumentation is as important as the argument. But here the structure is looser, the discussion less technical. Having established the "I = strange loop" formula, Hofstadter now wants to show what it means for our souls. "Soul" is certainly not a term one expects from a materialist like Hofstadter. But in his lexicon, "soul" is interchangeable with "I," "self" or "consciousness" ? just another name for the mind's strange loop. And because a strange loop is an aspect of a physical process, it ? like anything physical ? can be measured. Can one quantify a soul? Do some people have more "soul" than others? Well, yes: "I believe that a human soul ? and, by the way, it is my aim in this book to make clear what I mean by this slippery, shifting word, often rife with religious connotations, but here not having any ? comes slowly into being over the course of years of development. It may sound crass to put it this way, but I would like to suggest, at least metaphorically, a numerical scale of 'degrees of souledness.' " Citing a favorite comment from the early 20th century music critic James Huneker to the effect that "small-souled men" should not attempt a particularly demanding Chopin ?tude, Hofstadter cheekily calls the units of this scale "hunekers." Mature human beings average 100 hunekers. Dogs and infants are in the single digits. Violent sociopaths are low on the scale too. And some people have more than 100. Hofstadter's justification for these rankings draws on his personal experience of grief, giving the book the flavor of memoir. His beloved wife, Carol, died when she was in her early 40s, leaving behind two small children. Because she was (the term is inescapable) his soul mate and they were "one individual with two bodies," the loss was shattering. "For brief periods of time in conversations, or even in nonverbal moments of intense feeling, I was Carol, just as, at times, she was Doug. So her 'personal gemma' (to borrow Stanislaw Lem's term in his story 'Non Serviam') had brought into existence a somewhat blurry, coarse-grained copy of itself inside my brain, had created a secondary G?delian swirl inside my brain (the primary one of course being my own self-swirl), a G?delian swirl that allowed me to be her, or, said otherwise, a G?delian swirl that allowed her self, her personal gemma, to ride (in simplified form) on my hardware." >From his grief, he gained an insight into how our souls are enlarged. Like Wagner's Parsifal, who goes from simpleton to savior when he incorporates into his consciousness the suffering of the Grail knights' king, we as individuals can replicate in our own minds the strange loops of others, seeing with their eyes, walking in their shoes, thinking their thoughts ? and this ability to encompass others' points of view is the basis of compassion. "The interpenetration of souls is an inevitable consequence of the power of the representationally universal machines that our brains are," Hofstadter writes. "That is the true meaning of the word 'empathy.' I am capable of being other people, even if it is merely an 'economy class' version of the act of being." So, to raise your hunekers, host more souls. Indeed, Hofstadter proposes a list ("Mohandas Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Raoul Wallenberg, Jean Moulin, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and C?sar Ch?vez") of "extraordinary individuals whose deep empathy for those who suffer leads them to devote a large part of their lives to helping others." Since a soul is equivalent to consciousness, "[s]uch people, I propose, are more conscious than normal adults are." Without judging the worthiness of the people on Hofstadter's list, I admit to some qualms. His contention that quanta of our consciousness can form in other brains is a reasonable ramification of his model. But can one convincingly say that the more points of view you imagine, the more compassionate you are? Could not such a person just as easily use that acute understanding of others to exploit them? And is his explanation the most elegant? Neurologists have shown that there are two brain regions, the anterior cingulate cortex and the frontoinsular cortex, involved in compassion. Perhaps Gandhi et al. simply had larger ones than the rest of us; perhaps their "hardware" disposed them to be more compassionate and "strange loops" had nothing to do with it. Hofstadter does not consider such neurological research in his book. I wish he had; it would be interesting to know how it validated or altered his model. I would also have liked to see a rejoinder to British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose's ideas about consciousness, since Penrose too employs G?del's incompleteness theorem, although with radically different results. But such lines of inquiry await another book. In the meantime, "I Am a Strange Loop" is vintage Hofstadter: earnest, deep, overflowing with ideas, building its argument into the experience of reading it ? for if our souls can incorporate those of others, then "I Am a Strange Loop" can transmit Hofstadter's into ours. And indeed, it is impossible to come away from this book without having introduced elements of his point of view into our own. It may not make us kinder or more compassionate, but we will never look at the world, inside or out, in the same way again. Jesse Cohen is the series editor of "The Best American Science Writing 2006.? From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Mar 20 18:03:01 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:03:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/20/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > It is interesting to note that we may be undergoing a transition from > a Darwinian evolution to an almost exclusively Lamarckian mode. > Acquired and desired characteristics will become heritable and will > provide the vast majority of the variability between individuals that > is necessary for selection to occur. And the emerging field of epigenetics, part of the trend toward considering systems in both evolutionary and developmental terms ("evo/devo"), lends credence to the long-held suspicion that there's something more fundamental behind Darwinian evolution. - Jef From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 20 18:17:09 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:17:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070320181709.GW1512@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 11:03:01AM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > On 3/20/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > It is interesting to note that we may be undergoing a transition from > > a Darwinian evolution to an almost exclusively Lamarckian mode. Sorry, I see no evidence Lamarck can outperform Darwin. Just being a good idea doesn't make it true, unfortunately. > > Acquired and desired characteristics will become heritable and will Fitness still applies (Lamarckian agents compete with Darwinian), so merely desired won't cut it. You have to guess the future fitness landcape. Computationally, a hard task. > > provide the vast majority of the variability between individuals that > > is necessary for selection to occur. > > And the emerging field of epigenetics, part of the trend toward > considering systems in both evolutionary and developmental terms > ("evo/devo"), lends credence to the long-held suspicion that there's > something more fundamental behind Darwinian evolution. Darwin is just about replication. Errors and limited resource context automatically emerge in this spacetime. Of course, it takes a long time before mere replicators become effective Darwinian agents. You can't find something more basic/fundamental than this. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Mar 20 18:19:01 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:19:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times book review: I Am a Strange Loop - Hofstadter In-Reply-To: <17561539.587731174413491169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <17561539.587731174413491169.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: On 3/20/07, pjmanney wrote: > Hello All -- > > It will be obvious why I posted this. Hofstadter is writing about consciousness and empathy. Any one read this book yet? I've had it on order for months and the release date keeps getting pushed back. Currently expected to ship from Amazon May 19-22. It's a must-read for me, simply because his G?del, Escher, Bach continues to stand as the most inspirational book I've ever read. In his new book he tries to convey the simple, but oh so difficult concept that "self" is a "strange loop" -- a pattern that is able to look back at itself. I'm anticipating buying copies as gifts for those with whom I tend to debate this concept. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Mar 20 18:50:08 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:50:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <20070320181709.GW1512@leitl.org> References: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <20070320181709.GW1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/20/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > And the emerging field of epigenetics, part of the trend toward > > considering systems in both evolutionary and developmental terms > > ("evo/devo"), lends credence to the long-held suspicion that there's > > something more fundamental behind Darwinian evolution. > > Darwin is just about replication. Errors and limited resource context > automatically emerge in this spacetime. Of course, it takes a long time > before mere replicators become effective Darwinian agents. > > You can't find something more basic/fundamental than this. Yeah, I should have qualified my statement to something like "...more fundamental behind standard biological evolution." I agree with the intent of your comment, as it extends to include non-biological evolution, but I doubt that our broader interpretation qualifies as "Darwinian" for most people, or even most scientists. By "more fundamental", I'm alluding to description of processes all the way down to the level of information, but I suspect we already agree on this as well. - Jef From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 20:20:26 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:20:26 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <20070320181709.GW1512@leitl.org> References: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <20070320181709.GW1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703201320x42cdc055r5b74e829781ca5df@mail.gmail.com> On 3/20/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 11:03:01AM -0700, Jef Allbright wrote: > > On 3/20/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > It is interesting to note that we may be undergoing a transition from > > > a Darwinian evolution to an almost exclusively Lamarckian mode. > > Sorry, I see no evidence Lamarck can outperform Darwin. Just being > a good idea doesn't make it true, unfortunately. > > > > Acquired and desired characteristics will become heritable and will > > Fitness still applies (Lamarckian agents compete with Darwinian), so > merely desired won't cut it. You have to guess the future fitness landcape. > Computationally, a hard task. ### Evolution is computationally highly inefficient. It takes mountains of dead bodies to come up with even trivial improvements. A search through the design space of an enzyme may take millions of years and staggering amounts of energy. Progress occurs as a side-effect of humongous waste. Intelligent design of offspring means using highly efficient computational algorithms running on specifically designed hardware. Searches through design spaces of enzymes may be soon feasible using only kilowatts of energy. It will be possible to design whole new, optimized metabolic networks from scratch, rather than cobble together old, only marginally appropriate ones. It is true that the designers do not have a god's eye view of the fitness landscape but then evolution doesn't either. In fact, where the designers can look ahead to the next few kinks in the metabolism or synaptic wiring, evolution is perfectly blind. There is absolutely no foresight in this process, mistakes are repeated millions of times, mutational moves are made with the same likelihood independently of their results on fitness. Lamarckian agents will be ultimately judged by their fitness, I agree, but given their improved computational efficiency, they should handily outcompete Darwinians, as long as this is what they desire. Rafal From pj at pj-manney.com Tue Mar 20 20:24:03 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:24:03 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times book review - Almost Human by Lee Gutkind Message-ID: <11317257.613551174422243677.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Pygmalion and Galatea rock on -- Gutkind on roboticists and their beloveds... [Okay, trying margins again with a new post.] [FYI Eugen - I put the following into a word doc, eliminated any spaces hiding stuff from top and bottom and narrowed the margins. Tell me if that helped at all... thanks!] PJ http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-lord18mar18,0,471713,print.htmlstory?coll=cl-bookreview BOOK REVIEW 'Almost Human' by Lee Gutkind Scientists pursue the goal of robots that think By M.G. Lord March 18, 2007 Almost Human: Making Robots Think Lee Gutkind W.W. Norton: 284 pp., $25.95 While wandering in the dead of night through the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, writer Lee Gutkind briefly mistook a robot for a person. The machine in question, known as Grace, or Graduated Robot Attending a Conference, was designed to schmooze and glad-hand with human attendees at a gathering sponsored by the American Assn. for Artificial Intelligence. "The way she talked ? the direct manner in which she confronted me ? made her seem real enough so that, for an instant, I felt off-balance," Gutkind writes. But the illusion was short-lived, because the robot's body "resembled an oil canister and it navigated the hallway on wheels." Gutkind recounts this episode in "Almost Human: Making Robots Think," an entertaining peek behind the scenes at the flesh-and-blood engineers of the groundbreaking Robotics Institute, much of whose research is funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation and the Defense Department. The book, however, is more about frustration than achievement. Despite the round-the-clock efforts of the best and the brightest, today's real-life robots are a dim, lumbering lot, a far cry from the wise, nimble models of science fiction. Indeed, the book might well have been titled "Not Very Human" or "Almost Human in the Dark if You Really, Really Want to Believe." Yet even in the period that Gutkind observed them, the robots did get smarter or, in the case of a robotic soccer team, more agile. The institute's engineers tweaked their software, mended their hardware and often viewed these activities as art rather than science. "I am like Tolstoy," said a woman working at the lab, a college student majoring in engineering. "He struggled and suffered for his art. I love the pain, because when you have a breakthrough, when something works, it is such a rush." Gutkind opens the book with a harrowing ride through the Atacama Desert in northern Chile with a maniacal graduate student at the wheel of a Toyota pickup. The Atacama's arid bleakness is similar to the environment NASA's robots face on Mars. Gutkind is headed for the base camp from which scientists and software engineers will test a robot called Zo?, which means "life" in Greek. Zo? is part of the Life in the Atacama experiment in NASA's Astrobiology Science and Technology for Exploring Planets program (mercifully abridged as ASTEP). The robot, which scientists hope to make partially able to think for itself, or autonomous, is a planetary field geologist. On Mars, where it will go if its functions can be refined in these trials, it will roll around and determine on its own which rocks are worth investigating. Before relating the antics of Zo?, however, Gutkind returns to Pittsburgh and offers background on the Robotics Institute, which was founded in 1979 as part of Carnegie Mellon's computer science school. He introduces one of its early players, William "Red" Whittaker, the institute's Fredkin Professor of Robotics, who becomes obsessed with adapting a Humvee to compete autonomously in a road race sponsored by the Defense Department's research-and-development arm. Denied sufficient funding by Carnegie Mellon, he struggles to get private sponsorship for his entries ? morphing from a nutty professor into a fast-talking publicity hound. Then there's associate research professor David Wettergreen, who is "the opposite of ostentatious," "a walking, talking statement on behalf of the nondescript." If robotics were an Aesop fable, Wettergreen would be the tortoise, Whittaker the hare. Appropriately, Wettergreen can be found in the Atacama, enduring freezing nights, grueling days and maddening failures ? and inspiring students to exhaust themselves as well. "Young people can work all night," he says. "And they have less perspective on when they should stop. They overcome lack of knowledge and experience by just putting in long hours." Despite the dearth of women in science, two of the institute's star roboticists are women. Before 2050, Manuela Veloso, a Portuguese electrical engineer with a PhD in artificial intelligence, hopes to have created a robot soccer team good enough to compete against humans in the World Cup championships. And chic French planetary geologist Nathalie Cabrol seeks to model a robot after part of herself ? not the chic part but the part that can tell an interesting rock from a boring one. The differences between roboticists seem far less significant than what they share: a passion for robot autonomy. "We are all nerds," explains a space scientist with the robotics team. "The robotics guys are baby nerds and we are older nerds. But we are all driven by the desire to unravel a complex intellectual puzzle." I wish Gutkind had spent more time on an area that I find fascinating: the anthropomorphizing and gendering of robots, which science-fiction author Robert A. Heinlein famously explored in his novel "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress." What Heinlein created was a computer that, depending on circumstances, could switch between masculine and feminine identities. Robots are heaps of hardware, not biological entities, yet humans apparently feel more comfortable if they assign them a gender, regardless of the crudeness of the gender stereotype. The institute, for example, has robot receptionists with gendered personalities: Valerie, a "female" who complains about her dates with vacuum cleaners and cars, and Tank, a "male," who has blundered so often that he has been placed "where he can do no harm," ? in other words, in a job traditionally for women. Tank, however, gave me the first real evidence that computers might eventually think for themselves. The robot appears contemptuous of the antediluvian gender roles that engineers (and Gutkind) project upon them. "I saw a very pretty blonde student type Tank an intimate message: 'I love you,' " Gutkind writes, "to which Tank replied, 'You don't even know me.' " Not surprisingly, some roboticists have their most intense relationships with their creations. Richard Wallace, for example, "a marijuana-smoking maverick, expelled from many of the best universities for his erratic behavior," is deeply invested in Alice (Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity), an empathetic artificial intelligence program with a female persona. "Her" interactive website has led "more people toward self-revelation and confession than most psychiatrists and priests." Gutkind excels at making complex technical concepts comprehensible and painting vivid word pictures. In the service of such vibrancy, he is occasionally imprecise, mentioning, for example, the activities of NASA's Sojourner rover in December 1996; in fact, the Mars Pathfinder carrying the rover launched in December and landed on the planet in July 1997. But these quibbles are minor compared with what Gutkind has accomplished ? making readers understand why these scientists chase after their quixotic dream. "The fact that you, a human being, have achieved the magic milestone of re-creating, if only for an instant, a real living creature that thinks and acts on its own, something almost human, is really quite remarkable," he writes. "And the frustration and failure that precedes it makes the magic of the moment of triumph all the more astonishing and satisfying and worthwhile." M.G. Lord's latest book is "Astro Turf: The Private Life of Rocket Science.? From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 20 20:51:01 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:51:01 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703201320x42cdc055r5b74e829781ca5df@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <20070320181709.GW1512@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703201320x42cdc055r5b74e829781ca5df@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070320205101.GS1512@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 04:20:26PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Evolution is computationally highly inefficient. It takes You still have to guess what the other guys will come up at the next iteration. If you don't guess quickly enough or accurately enough, you've lost. Regardless of which mode of evolution you utilize. And right now the embodied computation packs a lot of punch, especially if scaled up to the size of an ecology. > mountains of dead bodies to come up with even trivial improvements. A > search through the design space of an enzyme may take millions of > years and staggering amounts of energy. Progress occurs as a > side-effect of humongous waste. Yes, but the process doesn't attempt to optimize a particular enzyme. It's a side effect. > Intelligent design of offspring means using highly efficient > computational algorithms running on specifically designed hardware. Notice: there is no such specifically designed hardware yet. And you're computing against a Darwin in machine-phase, not today's agents. > Searches through design spaces of enzymes may be soon feasible using > only kilowatts of energy. It will be possible to design whole new, Right now physical modelling takes a lot of cycles. And these are extremely inefficient cycles. > optimized metabolic networks from scratch, rather than cobble together > old, only marginally appropriate ones. > > It is true that the designers do not have a god's eye view of the > fitness landscape but then evolution doesn't either. In fact, where > the designers can look ahead to the next few kinks in the metabolism > or synaptic wiring, evolution is perfectly blind. There is absolutely > no foresight in this process, mistakes are repeated millions of times, The difference between Darwin and Lamarck is largely that one blind trial is embodied, and the one is virtual, and only the winner is embodied. Latter machinery has a cost which brute-force faulty replicators don't have to bear. No, I don't think Lamarck will will over Darwin at any time. > mutational moves are made with the same likelihood independently of > their results on fitness. > > Lamarckian agents will be ultimately judged by their fitness, I agree, > but given their improved computational efficiency, they should handily I can do both Lamarck and Darwin at the same time. There is a continuum between them -- assuming that I can test things virtually, and don't have to test them all embodied. > outcompete Darwinians, as long as this is what they desire. Anything which doesn't think competitiviness is important on the long run isn't going to matter, on the long run. Space is big, you have to want it to colonize it. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From benboc at lineone.net Tue Mar 20 20:54:50 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:54:50 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46004A1A.8000504@lineone.net> Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > So I work out 3-4 times a week, I take aggressive amounts of vitamins, minerals, oils and other nutrients. Follows a healthy diet (recently became a vegetarian) and haven't had soda water (Coca Cola, etc.) in more than two years. I rarely drink coffee, but consume a good deal of tee with Stevia as sweetener. Stevia?! Where do you get it? Ever since first hearing of it, i've been frustrated by the fact that it's not "approved for human consumption", despite having been consumed for thousands of years by people in S. America. >I try to involve myself in multiple projects in both work and personal life, on various subjects and tasks. Reading lots of books on technology, health and philosophy (please feel free to suggest some for me). Apart from the obvious contenders like The Spike, The Age of Spiritual Machines, TSIN, Moravec's Mind Children, etc., you might be interested in the book that got me started, "Beyond Humanity: CyberEvolution and Future Minds", Gregory S Paul & Earl D Cox, ISBN 1-886801-21-5 (a bit gosh-wow, but at the time i found it really exciting and thought-provoking). And i'd thoroughly recommend Steve Grand's "Creation: Life and how to make it". ben zaiboc From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 20 20:59:09 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:59:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <20070320181709.GW1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: > By "more fundamental", I'm alluding to description of processes all the > way > down to the level of information, but I suspect we already agree on > this as well. The evolutionary interpretation of epistemology (which I accept as axiomatic) can be seen as having Lamarckian aspects. If all of evolution is contiguous (which I also accept as axiomatic) then it can be argued that evolution is best defined in a manner more abstract than considered either by Darwin or Lamarck. As you say, Jef, evolution alludes to "processes all the way down to the level of information." -gts From sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no Tue Mar 20 22:13:00 2007 From: sondre.bjellas at intellifield.no (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:13:00 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever In-Reply-To: <46004A1A.8000504@lineone.net> References: <46004A1A.8000504@lineone.net> Message-ID: <4249F7D5E13BF24C9BA37E6ACC55B8B61E0CF0@webmail.sensetech.no> It's sold as animal-food at the local health stores. I will have a look at your book suggestions. Stevia was banned as human-food in 2004 in Europe. Stevia is the best =) /Sondre -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ben Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:55 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > So I work out 3-4 times a week, I take aggressive amounts of vitamins, minerals, oils and other nutrients. Follows a healthy diet (recently became a vegetarian) and haven't had soda water (Coca Cola, etc.) in more than two years. I rarely drink coffee, but consume a good deal of tee with Stevia as sweetener. Stevia?! Where do you get it? Ever since first hearing of it, i've been frustrated by the fact that it's not "approved for human consumption", despite having been consumed for thousands of years by people in S. America. >I try to involve myself in multiple projects in both work and personal life, on various subjects and tasks. Reading lots of books on technology, health and philosophy (please feel free to suggest some for me). Apart from the obvious contenders like The Spike, The Age of Spiritual Machines, TSIN, Moravec's Mind Children, etc., you might be interested in the book that got me started, "Beyond Humanity: CyberEvolution and Future Minds", Gregory S Paul & Earl D Cox, ISBN 1-886801-21-5 (a bit gosh-wow, but at the time i found it really exciting and thought-provoking). And i'd thoroughly recommend Steve Grand's "Creation: Life and how to make it". ben zaiboc _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat ********************************************************************** This e-mail has been scanned for viruses and found clean. ********************************************************************** From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Mar 20 22:13:06 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:13:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <20070320205101.GS1512@leitl.org> References: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <20070320181709.GW1512@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703201320x42cdc055r5b74e829781ca5df@mail.gmail.com> <20070320205101.GS1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703201513r152e8195m211a16db1c9f5260@mail.gmail.com> On 3/20/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Right now physical modelling takes a lot of cycles. And these are > extremely inefficient cycles. ### Not as inefficient as the generate-10x6-prototypes-and-keep-one approach of evolution. ----------------------------------------- > > The difference between Darwin and Lamarck is largely that one blind > trial is embodied, and the one is virtual, and only the winner is > embodied. Latter machinery has a cost which brute-force faulty replicators > don't have to bear. ### The difference is that in Darwin, a hundred million blind trials are embodied, while in Lamarck, a hundred billion are considered before one is embodied. As long as the overall cost of considering a creature is much less than embodying it, Lamarck wins. ------------------------------------------ > > I can do both Lamarck and Darwin at the same time. There is a > continuum between them -- assuming that I can test things virtually, > and don't have to test them all embodied. ### Yeah, exactly, by going virtual you could cut costs by orders of magnitude. If the PC is cheap, CAD beats hammer and chisel. -------------------------------------- > > > outcompete Darwinians, as long as this is what they desire. > > Anything which doesn't think competitiviness is important on the long > run isn't going to matter, on the long run. Space is big, you have > to want it to colonize it. ### Of course. We agree here. Rafal From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Mar 20 17:47:16 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:47:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/19/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/20/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > I believe that we are in evolutionary disequilibrium caused by > > evolution of language, and more recently the complex societies capable > > of supporting science. The changes in our environment are profound, > > and therefore most of what our genes tell us to do on a daily basis > > are actions that are totally maladaptive as measured by the fitness > > function. It took only a few decades (invention of the condom, later > > the contraceptive pill, ) to sever the connection between the vast > > majority of sexual acts and procreation - conventional mammalian > > evolution may take centuries to reshape our minds around this > > development. But, unless evolution itself is abrogated (by a singleton > > AI or other mechanisms), the relevant alleles will be eventually > > removed, bringing the minds into equilibrium again. > > What would it mean to abrogate evolution? Arguably it has already happened: Only if we're limited to thinking about the biological phase or limited to (which?) human point of view. The underlying process of synergistic development continues to accelerate, exploiting novel modes of decreasing "friction" at the increasing surface of possibility space. > we are more concerned with our happiness, which for evolution is just a > means to an end, Arghh! Teleological confusion alert! (Although the point about decoupling motivations from biological procreation is well-taken.) rather than for example maximising family size. Might be useful here to distinguish between maximizing, satisficing and optimizing. It's trivial to argue that evolutionary processes don't necessarily maximize family size (see r-type and K-type ecological "strategies".) But more profound is the idea that when resources (including time, and the processing resources of any agent) are properly accounted for, it is optimum to satisfice (not maximize) solutions by maximizing returns subject to constraints. Although it is misleading to ascribe agency to the processes of evolution, it looks the same from inside the system. - Jef From randall at randallsquared.com Tue Mar 20 23:42:30 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:42:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever In-Reply-To: <46004A1A.8000504@lineone.net> References: <46004A1A.8000504@lineone.net> Message-ID: <683BCD6B-597D-463B-A224-4AECF69CEE06@randallsquared.com> On Mar 20, 2007, at 4:54 PM, ben wrote: > Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > etc.) in more than two years. I rarely drink coffee, but consume a > good > deal of tee with Stevia as sweetener. > > Stevia?! > > Where do you get it? Ever since first hearing of it, i've been > frustrated by the fact that it's not "approved for human consumption", > despite having been consumed for thousands of years by people in S. > America. Any health food store in the US, basically. For example: http://www.peachtreenaturalfoods.com/shop/product_view.asp? id=3269&StoreID=XRBK823T14S92ND700AKHLBD3UA7AP7C -- 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 brian at posthuman.com Wed Mar 21 01:03:31 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:03:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today In-Reply-To: <45FF26CA.4050408@posthuman.com> References: <45FE286A.1010709@posthuman.com> <4902d9990703191521n7f763734uce3ec7765f32fee1@mail.gmail.com> <45FF26CA.4050408@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <46008463.8020308@posthuman.com> This 2nd attempt today is pretty interesting so far. First try today went all the way to ignition, fired for about a second, but then auto-aborted because of ~.1% low chamber pressure (turned out the fuel was slightly too cold). The hold-down clamps never released so it just sat there. Now they've recycled all the fuel to help warm it up, and are making a 2nd launch attempt on the same day...7 minutes to go. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From brian at posthuman.com Wed Mar 21 01:42:31 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:42:31 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today In-Reply-To: <46008463.8020308@posthuman.com> References: <45FE286A.1010709@posthuman.com> <4902d9990703191521n7f763734uce3ec7765f32fee1@mail.gmail.com> <45FF26CA.4050408@posthuman.com> <46008463.8020308@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <46008D87.7080001@posthuman.com> Got off the ground on the 2nd try today, and made it at least into space. They cut the video feed on the 2nd stage after three minutes when it looked like it might be going into some kind of feedback wobble, so not clear yet if this was a total or just partial success. Either way, good job SpaceX I think. I hope they release additional video and details later. Brian Atkins wrote: > This 2nd attempt today is pretty interesting so far. First try today went all > the way to ignition, fired for about a second, but then auto-aborted because of > ~.1% low chamber pressure (turned out the fuel was slightly too cold). The > hold-down clamps never released so it just sat there. Now they've recycled all > the fuel to help warm it up, and are making a 2nd launch attempt on the same > day...7 minutes to go. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 21 04:07:48 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:07:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times book review: I Am a Strange Loop -Hofstadter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200703210424.l2L4O9f2018609@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright ... > > It's a must-read for me, simply because his G?del, Escher, Bach > continues to stand as the most inspirational book I've ever read. ... > > - Jef You and several of us, Jef. GEB put many of us on the road to becoming the people we are to this day. When I read it in 1983, it deflected my life trajectory by about a radian. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Wed Mar 21 04:40:58 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:40:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today In-Reply-To: <46008D87.7080001@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <200703210451.l2L4pMBB028624@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brian Atkins ... > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today > > Got off the ground on the 2nd try today, and made it at least into space. > They > cut the video feed on the 2nd stage after three minutes when it looked > like it > might be going into some kind of feedback wobble, so not clear yet if this > was a > total or just partial success. Either way, good job SpaceX I think. I hope > they > release additional video and details later... > Brian Atkins Woohoo! {8-] That radial wobble is worrisome, but it didn't look like it was getting worse or the bird was going unstable. As far as I could tell it was still going pointy end first at the end of the video. go Space-X! spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 21 05:18:05 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:18:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today In-Reply-To: <200703210451.l2L4pMBB028624@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <46008D87.7080001@posthuman.com> <200703210451.l2L4pMBB028624@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070321001726.022b07d8@satx.rr.com> At 09:40 PM 3/20/2007 -0700, spike wrote: >As far as I could tell it was still >going pointy end first at the end of the video. http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/070320_spacex_falc1_test2.html The roll control glitch affected how the Falcon 1 booster's second stage controlled itself in flight, sending the vehicle on a path that likely reentered the Earth's atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean without completing a full orbit, Musk said. The malfunction could have been due to a range of issues, such as helium leak or a roll control jet glitch, but only a subsequent analysis will root out the cause, he added. From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 05:55:25 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:55:25 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <20070313091206.GV31912@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/21/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > we are more concerned with our happiness, which for evolution is just a > > means to an end, > > Arghh! Teleological confusion alert! Any teleological explanation is ultimately vacuous, since the only two possible explanations for why things happen are determinism or true randomness (this is the same reason the question of "free will" is vacuous). Nevertheless, it is sometimes useful within a system to give a teleological explanation, like Dawkins' "selfish gene" metaphor. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Mar 21 03:54:23 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:54:23 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070320093900.040b6018@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070320093900.040b6018@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070320225107.02c1f8f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 09:52 AM 3/20/2007 -0700, Jef wrote: >On 3/20/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > At 08:55 PM 3/19/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > >At 12:11 PM 3/20/2007 +1100, Stathis wrote: > > > > > > >What would it mean to abrogate evolution? Arguably it has already > > > >happened: we are more concerned with our happiness, which for > > > >evolution is just a means to an end, rather than for example > > > >maximising family size. > > > > > >*Not* "maximizing", unless you add situational provisos (we're K, not > > >r). "Optimizing" might be better, but that's dangerously > > >teleological. "Good-enough-izing" is what I'd call it. > > > > In the EEA it was maximizing, but not family size, it is maximizing the > > number of surviving, reproducing children. To that end hunter gatherer > > peoples practice infanticide when a just born younger sib would threaten > > the survival of an older but still nursing child. > >Am I the only one who feels something akin to the screeching of >fingernails on a blackboard when someone blithely ascribes actions to >"goals" that would require an impossibly objective point of view? >Yes? Then I'll try to keep my comments to a minimum. > >"To that end hunter gatherer peoples practice infanticide..." implies >a teleological purpose that clearly isn't. Suggest: "Therefore/For >that reason (not purpose) hunter-gatherer peoples practice >infanticide..." > >It's the same kind of implicit context confusion that leads to >perennial misunderstanding of consciousness, free-will etc., >goals/supergoals in AI, and much of the PHIL101 discussion that often >dominates these lists. "From the mid-1970, modern evolutionary theory slowly began to win attention among anthropologists. One of the first anthropologists influenced by it was Napoleon A. Chagnon, who had already been the best-known student of the Yanomamo. Chagnon argued (1979a, 1979b, 1988) that Yanomamo warfare, as well as their internal conflicts, were predominantly about reproductive opportunities. In inter-village warfare, women were regularly raped or kidnapped for marriage, or both. Village headmen and distinguished warriors had many wives and children, many times more than ordinary people did. Violent feuds within the village were chiefly caused by adultery. "As we shall see, most of these ideas were true. Unfortunately, however, Chagnon - who in the 'protein controversy' wholly opposed the idea that Yanomamo warfare involved competition over hunting territories - gave the impression that evolutionary theory was about reproduction in the narrow rather than the broadest sense. His arguments have thus opened themselves to all sorts of criticisms; anthropologists have anyhow exhibited considerable resistance to the intrusion of evolutionary theory, which called for a thorough re-evaluation of accepted anthropological interpretative traditions. Many of the criticisms levelled against Chagnon's position have been poorly informed about the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. For instance, one critic (McCauley 1990: 3) queried why, if fighting was beneficial for inclusive fitness, was it not continuous and ubiquitous. He failed to realize that fighting, like any other behaviour, could be only one possible tactic for inclusive fitness, depending for its success, and activation, on the presence of specific conditions. Another cluster of often-voiced criticisms was that it was not true that people were motivated by the desire to maximize the number of their offspring; that the widespread occurrence of infanticide among primitive people was one example that belied this idea; and that women were sought for economic as well as sexual purposes, as a labour force (McCauley 1990; Ferguson 1995: 358-9). "The flaws in these criticisms can be pointed out only briefly here. It is not that people consciously 'want' to maximize the number of their children; although there is also some human desire for children per se and a great attachment to them once they exist, it is mainly the desire for sex - Thomas Malthus's 'passion' - which functions in nature as the powerful biological proximate mechanism for maximizing reproduction; as humans, and other living creatures, normally engage in sex throughout their fertile lives, they have a vast reproductive potential, which, before effective contraception, mainly depended for its realization on environmental conditions. "Infanticide typically takes place when a new-born in conditions of resource scarcity threatens the survival chances of his elder siblings, as, for example, of an elder nursing infant; for inclusive fitness is not about maximizing offspring number but about maximizing the number of surviving offspring." I really recommend you read the whole article. Keith Henson From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 21 09:07:29 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:07:29 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] LA Times book review: I Am a Strange Loop -Hofstadter In-Reply-To: <200703210424.l2L4O9f2018609@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200703210424.l2L4O9f2018609@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070321090728.GM1512@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 09:07:48PM -0700, spike wrote: > You and several of us, Jef. GEB put many of us on the road to becoming the > people we are to this day. When I read it in 1983, it deflected my life > trajectory by about a radian. I found GEB neat, but by no means a world changer. Rather conventional, in fact. Now the nonlinear dynamics/CA/neural/ALife stuff, that was an eye-opener. GEB was of the neat variety. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 09:57:48 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:57:48 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations Message-ID: Computationalism implies that a stream of consciousness survives fragmentation of the process generating the stream. If it did not, then there would be some change in experience as a result of fragmentation. For example, if an experience supervenes on past computational states as well as on the present instantaneous state, then arbitrarily slicing up the computation will change and perhaps completely disrupt the stream of consciousness. Consider a time interval t1t2t3 in which a simulated subject perceives a light stimulus (t1, t2, t3 are according to the clock within the simulation). The light is shone into his eyes at t1, and he presses a button at t3 to indicate that he has seen it. Now, suppose that the computation is cut at t2, so that the interval t1t2 is run several real time days before t2t3, or several days after, or not at all. Then since the experience during t2t3 is dependent not only on the computational activity going on in that interval, but also on what has gone on before, perhaps by excising t1t2 from its normal position in relation to t2t3 the subject will not perceive the stimulus, or not perceive it in time to press the button at t3. But that would mean the same computation (and same physical activity in the computer generating the computation) in t2t3 would in one case result in the subject pressing the button and in the other case not, which is absurd if computationalism is correct. Hence, the only reasonable way to look at it is to say that consciousness supervenes on the instantaneous computational state (or more simply, consciousness *is* the instantaneous computational state), which makes it impossible to know from the inside whether your computation has been fragmented. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 21 10:14:27 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:14:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070320225107.02c1f8f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070320093900.040b6018@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070320225107.02c1f8f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 3/20/07, Keith Henson wrote: > At 09:52 AM 3/20/2007 -0700, Jef wrote: > >On 3/20/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > > At 08:55 PM 3/19/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > > >At 12:11 PM 3/20/2007 +1100, Stathis wrote: > > > > > > > > >What would it mean to abrogate evolution? Arguably it has already > > > > >happened: we are more concerned with our happiness, which for > > > > >evolution is just a means to an end, rather than for example > > > > >maximising family size. > > > > > > > >*Not* "maximizing", unless you add situational provisos (we're K, not > > > >r). "Optimizing" might be better, but that's dangerously > > > >teleological. "Good-enough-izing" is what I'd call it. > > > > > > In the EEA it was maximizing, but not family size, it is maximizing the > > > number of surviving, reproducing children. To that end hunter gatherer > > > peoples practice infanticide when a just born younger sib would threaten > > > the survival of an older but still nursing child. > > > >Am I the only one who feels something akin to the screeching of > >fingernails on a blackboard when someone blithely ascribes actions to > >"goals" that would require an impossibly objective point of view? > >Yes? Then I'll try to keep my comments to a minimum. > > > >"To that end hunter gatherer peoples practice infanticide..." implies > >a teleological purpose that clearly isn't. Suggest: "Therefore/For > >that reason (not purpose) hunter-gatherer peoples practice > >infanticide..." > > > >It's the same kind of implicit context confusion that leads to > >perennial misunderstanding of consciousness, free-will etc., > >goals/supergoals in AI, and much of the PHIL101 discussion that often > >dominates these lists. > > "The flaws in these criticisms can be pointed out only briefly here. It is > not that people consciously 'want' to maximize the number of their > children; although there is also some human desire for children per se and > a great attachment to them once they exist, it is mainly the desire for sex > - Thomas Malthus's 'passion' - which functions in nature as the powerful > biological proximate mechanism for maximizing reproduction; as humans, and > other living creatures, normally engage in sex throughout their fertile > lives, they have a vast reproductive potential, which, before effective > contraception, mainly depended for its realization on environmental > conditions. > > "Infanticide typically takes place when a new-born in conditions of > resource scarcity threatens the survival chances of his elder siblings, as, > for example, of an elder nursing infant; for inclusive fitness is not about > maximizing offspring number but about maximizing the number of surviving > offspring." > > I really recommend you read the whole article. Keith, the excerpt merely supports your point about the evolutionary process behind the infanticide. However, that was never in question as I, and many of us on this list, are already quite familiar with evolutionary theory -- extending to evolutionary psychology. My point, which you apparently missed, was an objection to the misleading and unthinking use of teleological language in reference to evolutionary processes. As Stathis states elsewhere, teleological language is sometimes appropriate as metaphor, but this wasn't one of those times. - Jef From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 21 10:57:34 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:57:34 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:57:48PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Computationalism implies that a stream of consciousness survives > fragmentation of the process generating the stream. If it did not, > then there would be some change in experience as a result of > fragmentation. For example, if an experience supervenes on past I don't know what computationalism is, so I take that as a definition. Computationalism means that the trajectory sequence doesn't matter. The immediate objection: which process produces the trajectory slices which are out of sequence, but belong to the same trajectory? Enumeration only works for trivial state space sizes. Computing shortcuts are available only for some trivial systems, so you have to compute the trajectory in sequence, which defies the purpose of assembling the trajectory out of sequence. How do you verify the subjective experience? The only way to do that would to access the trajectory frames, which requires information about the sequence of trajectory frames. See, there's a giant can of worms implied. > computational states as well as on the present instantaneous state, > then arbitrarily slicing up the computation will change and perhaps How would you "arbitrarily slice up the computation"? > completely disrupt the stream of consciousness. Consider a time > interval t1t2t3 in which a simulated subject perceives a light > stimulus (t1, t2, t3 are according to the clock within the > simulation). The light is shone into his eyes at t1, and he presses a > button at t3 to indicate that he has seen it. Now, suppose that the > computation is cut at t2, so that the interval t1t2 is run several > real time days before t2t3, or several days after, or not at all. Then > since the experience during t2t3 is dependent not only on the > computational activity going on in that interval, but also on what has > gone on before, perhaps by excising t1t2 from its normal position in > relation to t2t3 the subject will not perceive the stimulus, or not > perceive it in time to press the button at t3. But that would mean the > same computation (and same physical activity in the computer > generating the computation) in t2t3 would in one case result in the > subject pressing the button and in the other case not, which is absurd > if computationalism is correct. Hence, the only reasonable way to look > at it is to say that consciousness supervenes on the instantaneous You keep using that word. Nobody but you knows that that word means. > computational state (or more simply, consciousness *is* the > instantaneous computational state), which makes it impossible to know > from the inside whether your computation has been fragmented. You still haven't replied how to verify the subjective experience of a Hash Life observer in a observer/virtual world implemented in the Life CA. Verify as: measure. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From hkhenson at rogers.com Wed Mar 21 11:38:12 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:38:12 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070320225107.02c1f8f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070319204914.023d5a18@satx.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070320093900.040b6018@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070320225107.02c1f8f8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070321062954.03ecd5c8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 03:14 AM 3/21/2007 -0700, Jef wrote: snip >Keith, the excerpt merely supports your point about the evolutionary >process behind the infanticide. However, that was never in question >as I, and many of us on this list, are already quite familiar with >evolutionary theory -- extending to evolutionary psychology. My point, >which you apparently missed, was an objection to the misleading and >unthinking use of teleological language in reference to evolutionary >processes. You objected to the way I phrased it. I presented alternate language in the hope it would meet your objections. >As Stathis states elsewhere, teleological language is sometimes >appropriate as metaphor, but this wasn't one of those times. Sorry to have tripped you "teleological" detector. It's not a word I use--having never taken a philosophy course in my life. Keith From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 12:39:04 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:39:04 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/21/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:57:48PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > Computationalism implies that a stream of consciousness survives > > fragmentation of the process generating the stream. If it did not, > > then there would be some change in experience as a result of > > fragmentation. For example, if an experience supervenes on past > > I don't know what computationalism is, so I take that as a definition. It's not the definition, it's what I'm trying to prove. Computationalism is the idea that you could swap your brain for an appropriately configured digital computer and continue to have the same kinds of subjective experiences. Computationalism would be wrong if we had a God-given soul or if Penrose were right and the brain is not Turing-emulable. Computationalism means that the trajectory sequence doesn't matter. I think it does, but it appears that you think it doesn't. The immediate objection: which process produces the trajectory slices > which are out of sequence, but belong to the same trajectory? > Enumeration only works for trivial state space sizes. Computing > shortcuts are available only for some trivial systems, so you have > to compute the trajectory in sequence, which defies the purpose > of assembling the trajectory out of sequence. That objection relates to how the states will be generated, not to what would happen if they were generated out of sequence. If I asked you whether a car would still function as a car if it were thrown together in exactly the right configuration by a storm rather than assembled in a factory, would you answer that it wouldn't, because it is very unlikely that such a thing would happen? In any case, you can assume that the computation is run in sequence the first time, then out of sequence on the second run using information from the first run. How do you verify the subjective experience? The only way to do that would > to > access the trajectory frames, which requires information about > the sequence of trajectory frames. > > See, there's a giant can of worms implied. You verify it the way any psychological experimenter would: by observing the subject's behaviour, in this case perhaps on a computer screen if the program includes a visual representation of the action. > computational states as well as on the present instantaneous state, > > then arbitrarily slicing up the computation will change and perhaps > > How would you "arbitrarily slice up the computation"? By stopping it and starting it at various intervals, changing the clock speed, changing the computer, saving it at various points and using this information the second time to run it out of sequence. > completely disrupt the stream of consciousness. Consider a time > > interval t1t2t3 in which a simulated subject perceives a light > > stimulus (t1, t2, t3 are according to the clock within the > > simulation). The light is shone into his eyes at t1, and he presses a > > button at t3 to indicate that he has seen it. Now, suppose that the > > computation is cut at t2, so that the interval t1t2 is run several > > real time days before t2t3, or several days after, or not at all. > Then > > since the experience during t2t3 is dependent not only on the > > computational activity going on in that interval, but also on what > has > > gone on before, perhaps by excising t1t2 from its normal position in > > relation to t2t3 the subject will not perceive the stimulus, or not > > perceive it in time to press the button at t3. But that would mean > the > > same computation (and same physical activity in the computer > > generating the computation) in t2t3 would in one case result in the > > subject pressing the button and in the other case not, which is > absurd > > if computationalism is correct. Hence, the only reasonable way to > look > > at it is to say that consciousness supervenes on the instantaneous > > You keep using that word. Nobody but you knows that that word means. Consciousness, supervenes on or instantaneous? consciousness = having experiences supervenes on = a little involved, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervene, but let's just say it means "caused by" for the sake of this argument instantaneous = same usage as in calculus (approximately, since computational states are discrete) > computational state (or more simply, consciousness *is* the > > instantaneous computational state), which makes it impossible to know > > from the inside whether your computation has been fragmented. > > You still haven't replied how to verify the subjective experience of a > Hash Life observer in a observer/virtual world implemented in the Life > CA. Verify as: measure. You can't really *know* what someone else is thinking, but you can observe his behaviour or ask him. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 21 13:18:27 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:18:27 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:39:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > I don't know what computationalism is, so I take that as a > definition. > > It's not the definition, it's what I'm trying to prove. It's an interesting problem. I don't think it makes much sense, though. > Computationalism is the idea that you could swap your brain for an > appropriately configured digital computer and continue to have the > same kinds of subjective experiences. Computationalism would be wrong > if we had a God-given soul or if Penrose were right and the brain is > not Turing-emulable. I can't rule out computationalism (what an awful word) is correct, but that's my working model. It would be very difficult to patch up a live system, especially a formerly alive system which is a cryogenic chunk of tissue glass. > Computationalism means that the trajectory sequence doesn't matter. > > I think it does, but it appears that you think it doesn't. I'm seeing big practical problems with shortcuts. The world is nonlinear, and the CNS is especially nonlinear, so there can't be any deep shortcuts. You're limited to resuming from snapshots. That's not out of sequence, that's strictly sequential. If the computation is completely reversible, then it would be also interesting to see subjectively what happens when you run it in reverse. Apart from that, I don't see many other opportunities to game the system. > The immediate objection: which process produces the trajectory > slices > which are out of sequence, but belong to the same trajectory? > Enumeration only works for trivial state space sizes. Computing > shortcuts are available only for some trivial systems, so you have > to compute the trajectory in sequence, which defies the purpose > of assembling the trajectory out of sequence. > > That objection relates to how the states will be generated, not to > what would happen if they were generated out of sequence. If I asked I have reason to suspect that they can't be generated out of sequence. It's like speculating what would happen if I could jump to the Moon straight out of my chair. Simple physics tells us we can't, so we can spare the speculation. > you whether a car would still function as a car if it were thrown > together in exactly the right configuration by a storm rather than > assembled in a factory, would you answer that it wouldn't, because it > is very unlikely that such a thing would happen? In any case, you can Precisely. This is not something which can't happen in theory, it can't happen in practice. Stochastical processes don't build up complexity without some secret sauce guidance. > assume that the computation is run in sequence the first time, then > out of sequence on the second run using information from the first > run. How exactly would you run a simulation out of sequence? Here's a gas box. It computes system refreshes (trajectory frames) once a second. It dumps a snapshot image every minute. You don't know what the snapshot image after an hour is, without running the computation. You can go back to the snapshot frames, and and resume from there, but it doesn't change the end result. But you can't shortcut to the end result without doing the work. > How do you verify the subjective experience? The only way to do > that would to > access the trajectory frames, which requires information about > the sequence of trajectory frames. > See, there's a giant can of worms implied. > > You verify it the way any psychological experimenter would: by > observing the subject's behaviour, in this case perhaps on a computer > screen if the program includes a visual representation of the action. But you're running things out of sequence (which is usually impossible, but Hash Life gives you a minor leeway here). How can you measure behaviour which is out of sequence? You have to access it in sequence, so you're doing the work. Not the system. > > computational states as well as on the present instantaneous > state, > > then arbitrarily slicing up the computation will change and > perhaps > How would you "arbitrarily slice up the computation"? > > By stopping it and starting it at various intervals, changing the > clock speed, changing the computer, saving it at various points and > using this information the second time to run it out of sequence. How can you run a linear computation out of sequence? You can run it backwards, assuming it's reversible (most are not). You can resume from snapshots, but this is all forwards or backwards, each slice precisly in sequence. Show me how you would run things out of sequence. In a generic case, not in Hash Life sense. > You keep using that word. Nobody but you knows that that word > means. > > Consciousness, supervenes on or instantaneous? > consciousness = having experiences Having experiences means as little to me as consciousness (i.e. I can't work with that definitions computationally, they're too diffuse), but I'll agree with that for the moment. > supervenes on = a little involved, see > [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervene, but let's just say it means > "caused by" for the sake of this argument It is so involved that it's not saying me anything at all. What is supervienience good for? What can I build with it, what I can't without it? > instantaneous = same usage as in calculus (approximately, since > computational states are discrete) I don't see where you refer to instanteous in your reasoning, but instanteous doesn't exist. Not in theory, in practice. Computation takes spatial extent, which is equivalent with time in a relativistic universe. > > computational state (or more simply, consciousness *is* the > > instantaneous computational state), which makes it impossible > to know > > from the inside whether your computation has been fragmented. > You still haven't replied how to verify the subjective experience > of a > Hash Life observer in a observer/virtual world implemented in the > Life > CA. Verify as: measure. > > You can't really *know* what someone else is thinking, but you can > observe his behaviour or ask him. This is precisely what I'm asking you. How can you measure the behaviour in a sim which is out of sequence? Specifically, in a Hash Life world? It is the only kind of world which allows nonlinear spacetime computation. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 14:39:27 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:39:27 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com> On 3/21/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/21/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > Of course, substitution > > of economic or technological success for physical characteristics such > > as hair, as the variable acted on by evolution, does not stop > > evolution, merely redirects it. Natural selection still continues to > > occur, since there is clearly differential fitness as measured by the > > number of surviving offspring among humans. > > Is there any evidence that smarter, richer, better-looking etc. people today > are more likely to pass on their genes than most of the rest of the > population? > ### I am not sure about the meaning of your question. I noted that there is differential fitness among humans, therefore selection for traits correlated to fitness is still taking place. Do you think that this is incorrect? Rafal From asa at nada.kth.se Wed Mar 21 15:01:27 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:01:27 +0100 (MET) Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com> References: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49263.86.153.216.201.1174489287.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 3/21/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> Is there any evidence that smarter, richer, better-looking etc. people >> today >> are more likely to pass on their genes than most of the rest of the >> population? There seems that IQ correlates negatively with fertility in many modern societies: Vancourt, M. and F. D. Bean. 1985. Intelligence and Fertility in the United-States - 1912-1982. Intelligence 9(1): 23-32. Udry, J. R. 1978. Differential Fertility by Intelligence - Role of Birth Planning. Social Biology 25(1): 10-14. Vining, D. R., L. Bygren, K. Hattori, S. Nystrom and S. Tamura. 1988. IQ/Fertility Relationships in Japan and Sweden. Personality and Individual Differences 9(5): 931-932. It is a pretty small effect. This paper argues that at least among medieval jews smart people had a fitness advantage: Cochran, G., J. Hardy and H. Harpending. 2006. Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. Journal of Biosocial Science. I don't know about being richer, but I think there are some papers showing that high status males tend to remarry more often and have more children, at least in fairly recent premodern societies. Dustin J. Penn and Ken R. Smith showed in the PNAS paper "Differential fitness costs of reproduction between the sexes" that there were definite fitness costs of having many children among women in the late 1800s. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 21 17:16:48 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:16:48 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] differential fitness In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.co m> References: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070321120733.02363860@satx.rr.com> > > Is there any evidence that smarter, richer, better-looking etc. > people today > > are more likely to pass on their genes than most of the rest of the > > population? > >### I am not sure about the meaning of your question. I noted that >there is differential fitness among humans, therefore selection for >traits correlated to fitness is still taking place. Do you think that >this is incorrect? > >Rafal Fitness is such a mess of conceptual worms. I suggest a look at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitness/ Individual phenotypic "fitness"--success at surviving and thriving in one's lifelong environment, especially a culturally modified one--is not *obviously* linked directly to number of fertile offspring a generation or two down the line. (Leaving aside individuals too dysfunctional by genotype or accident to reach maturity.) It might have been a million years ago, but how could we know that? Damien Broderick From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 21 17:26:51 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:26:51 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: <49263.86.153.216.201.1174489287.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com> <49263.86.153.216.201.1174489287.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: > Is there any evidence that... better-looking... people today are more > likely to pass on their genes than most of the rest of the population? I seem to recall seeing plenty of evidence that human females with hour-glass figures (with wide hip structures amenable to successful pregnancies) are most attractive as sexual mates to the males of my species. I see this kind of evidence every day, with no need to consult scientific journals. -gts From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 21 19:01:53 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:01:53 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] hour-glass figures, beer-keg figures... In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60703131217h17083574jb6cbb0468a06959f@mail.gmail.com> <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com> <49263.86.153.216.201.1174489287.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070321135504.023d9f90@satx.rr.com> At 01:26 PM 3/21/2007 -0400, gts wrote: >I seem to recall seeing plenty of evidence that human females with >hour-glass figures (with wide hip structures amenable to successful >pregnancies) are most attractive as sexual mates to the males of my >species. I see this kind of evidence every day I see plenty of evidence every time I leave the house that human females who are alive attract sexual mates and have an abundance of children. Many of them have wide hip structures, to put it mildly; in fact, many of them have wide structures in every direction. Damien Broderick From benboc at lineone.net Wed Mar 21 19:49:15 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:49:15 +0000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46018C3B.6080301@lineone.net> Randall Randall wrote: > On Mar 20, 2007, at 4:54 PM, ben wrote: > > Stevia?! > > > > Where do you get it? > Any health food store in the US, basically. For example: > http://www.peachtreenaturalfoods.com/shop/product_view.asp? id=3269&StoreID=XRBK823T14S92ND700AKHLBD3UA7AP7C I'm a Frayed Knot: "This Product is No Longer available on this site" ben zaiboc From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 21 21:02:09 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:02:09 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <2256.163.1.72.81.1173817589.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com> <49263.86.153.216.201.1174489287.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <20070321210209.GX1512@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:26:51PM -0400, gts wrote: > I seem to recall seeing plenty of evidence that human females with > hour-glass figures (with wide hip structures amenable to successful Which is mostly a function of age (strongly correlated with fertility), not the genotype. > pregnancies) are most attractive as sexual mates to the males of my > species. I see this kind of evidence every day, with no need to consult > scientific journals. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From randall at randallsquared.com Wed Mar 21 22:27:29 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:27:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Live long enough to live forever In-Reply-To: <46018C3B.6080301@lineone.net> References: <46018C3B.6080301@lineone.net> Message-ID: <70E4BC1A-71FC-42C7-9780-02D974FDFC2E@randallsquared.com> On Mar 21, 2007, at 3:49 PM, ben wrote: > Randall Randall wrote: >> On Mar 20, 2007, at 4:54 PM, ben wrote: >>> Stevia?! >>> >>> Where do you get it? > >> Any health food store in the US, basically. For > example: > >> http://www.peachtreenaturalfoods.com/shop/product_view.asp? > id=3269&StoreID=XRBK823T14S92ND700AKHLBD3UA7AP7C > > > I'm a Frayed Knot: > > "This Product is No Longer available on this site" Still there for me; perhaps you didn't copy the full link? Here's a (preview) tinyurl of it: http://preview.tinyurl.com/3dpfln -- Randall Randall "Part of it may be that in the olden days, when the worst thing the writers had ever faced was the Great Depression and World War Two, it was easier to be upbeat about the future's potential, whereas now, when we are saddled with enough conventional fuels to last us centuries, monstrously bloated incomes and the dilemma of which of 500 channels to watch, spotting any ray of light seems impossible. " -- James Nicoll From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 21 22:36:18 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:36:18 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60703140831h75397d68sbcff30e444b6e0cf@mail.gmail.com> <3011.163.1.72.81.1173890167.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com> <49263.86.153.216.201.1174489287.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On 3/22/07, gts wrote: > > > Is there any evidence that... better-looking... people today are more > > likely to pass on their genes than most of the rest of the population? > > I seem to recall seeing plenty of evidence that human females with > hour-glass figures (with wide hip structures amenable to successful > pregnancies) are most attractive as sexual mates to the males of my > species. I see this kind of evidence every day, with no need to consult > scientific journals. But they don't necessarily have more children. Birth control has decoupled sex from reproduction. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu Mar 22 00:14:46 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:14:46 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070321001726.022b07d8@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200703220029.l2M0TBQ6018706@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:18 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today > > At 09:40 PM 3/20/2007 -0700, spike wrote: > > > >As far as I could tell it was still > >going pointy end first at the end of the video. > > http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/070320_spacex_falc1_test2.html > > The roll control glitch affected how the Falcon 1 booster's second > stage controlled itself in flight, sending the vehicle on a path that > likely reentered the Earth's atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean > without completing a full orbit, Musk said. The malfunction could > have been due to a range of issues, such as helium leak or a roll > control jet glitch, but only a subsequent analysis will root out the > cause, he added. Doh! I spoke to my propulsion guy today who said a wobble like that can get the fuel sloshing around the outside of the tank such that the bird runs out of fuel with some still in the tank. A sophisticated rocket can deal with that level of roll, but this one probably didn't have the high end fuel slosh scavenging equipment. {8-[ Damn. spike From brian at posthuman.com Thu Mar 22 00:47:38 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:47:38 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today In-Reply-To: <200703220029.l2M0TBQ6018706@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200703220029.l2M0TBQ6018706@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4601D22A.9070901@posthuman.com> spike wrote: > > I spoke to my propulsion guy today who said a wobble like that can get the > fuel sloshing around the outside of the tank such that the bird runs out of > fuel with some still in the tank. A sophisticated rocket can deal with that > level of roll, but this one probably didn't have the high end fuel slosh > scavenging equipment. {8-[ Damn. > Yes, fuel slosh issues are one popular theory right now in the armchair rocketeer forums. Also it appears the first stage actually touched/hit the 2nd stage nozzle at stage sep, so something was off there that will have to be looked at. Another theory is a stuck cold gas thruster on the second stage which might have caused both above issues. SpaceX should have plenty enough data to figure this out quick, and so far they are sticking with doing their first real commercial launch at the end of the summer, with another to follow in the fall. Here's a youtube video of it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE4HkniM3Vc -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 06:42:43 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:42:43 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/22/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: How exactly would you run a simulation out of sequence? Here's a gas box. > It computes system refreshes (trajectory frames) once a second. It > dumps a snapshot image every minute. You don't know what the snapshot > image after an hour is, without running the computation. > > You can go back to the snapshot frames, and and resume from there, > but it doesn't change the end result. But you can't shortcut to the > end result without doing the work. But once you have done the work, you can take the snapshots and run the computation a second time out of sequence, e.g. running the first minute last and the last minute first. Would the inhabitants of the simulation notice that something unusual had happened? I think if they did, that would indicate there was something non-computational, perhaps even magical, about consciousness. > How do you verify the subjective experience? The only way to do > > that would to > > access the trajectory frames, which requires information about > > the sequence of trajectory frames. > > See, there's a giant can of worms implied. > > > > You verify it the way any psychological experimenter would: by > > observing the subject's behaviour, in this case perhaps on a computer > > screen if the program includes a visual representation of the action. > > But you're running things out of sequence (which is usually impossible, > but Hash Life gives you a minor leeway here). How can you measure > behaviour which is out of sequence? You have to access it in sequence, > so you're doing the work. Not the system. You look at the behaviour in a segment which is out of sequence and compare it to the behaviour in the original in sequence segment, noting that it is the same in each case. Do you expect to observe anything different if you did the experiment? Do you believe it is possible that, if we broke up the simulation into minutes and mixed them up, the overall stream of consciousness of the simulated subject would be different even though at every point in every segment the observed behaviour is exactly the same as in the original? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu Mar 22 11:13:33 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:43:33 +1030 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <1107.163.1.72.81.1172838665.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> <1107.163.1.72.81.1172838665.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: <710b78fc0703220413w589b400dwff67884789516cad@mail.gmail.com> On 02/03/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 10:38 AM 2/28/2007 -0500, someone wrote: > >>The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there > >>something rather than nothing? > > > > Good dog in heat, I get so tired of this fake question. What makes > > anyone suppose that "nothing" is the default physical or metaphysical > > condition, or even an intelligible construct? > > I often ponder why there is something rather than everything. Yes, I hear that. There may very well be everything of course, and we are just by chance stuck in this particular bit of it. My usual answer is the anthropic principle, but outside our neat little > domain lies all the other Tegmark Level 4 possibilities. Anthropic principle, definitely, that's the answer to the question. The hard question is not "why is there something" but "why is there this particular, arbitrary looking something". Again we can scale down the set of somethings from everything to all the possible self consistent & intelligence supporting somethings, but that still seems to hold a lot of somethings. But I think you said that ;-) Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to rewind time and run evolution on earth again from the start, to see what comes up in alternate histories? Do you think intelligence would evolve again, eventually? Would it be similar to us? My guess is that alternate evolved intelligences would be pretty similar mentally to us, even if physically they were to be pretty different. eg: Reciprocal altruism, kinship preferences, reputation building behaviour, the foundations of morality would be likely made of the same building blocks. It makes me wonder how much all the alternate somethings that could be could differ in substance, even given superficial differences. Emlyn -- > Anders Sandberg, > Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics > Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Thu Mar 22 16:07:21 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:07:21 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0703220413w589b400dwff67884789516cad@mail.gmail.com> References: <8C92965B18935D0-16C8-AB4@WEBMAIL-RD12.sysops.aol.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070302020442.023b7760@satx.rr.com> <1107.163.1.72.81.1172838665.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> <710b78fc0703220413w589b400dwff67884789516cad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/22/07, Emlyn wrote: > On 02/03/07, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > > Damien Broderick wrote: > > > At 10:38 AM 2/28/2007 -0500, someone wrote: > > >>The question remains in our universe of thoughts, why is there > > >>something rather than nothing? > > > > > > Good dog in heat, I get so tired of this fake question. What makes > > > anyone suppose that "nothing" is the default physical or metaphysical > > > condition, or even an intelligible construct? > > > > I often ponder why there is something rather than everything. > > > Yes, I hear that. There may very well be everything of course, and we are > just by chance stuck in this particular bit of it. > > > My usual answer is the anthropic principle, but outside our neat little > > domain lies all the other Tegmark Level 4 possibilities. > > > Anthropic principle, definitely, that's the answer to the question. The hard > question is not "why is there something" but "why is there this particular, > arbitrary looking something". Again we can scale down the set of somethings > from everything to all the possible self consistent & intelligence > supporting somethings, but that still seems to hold a lot of somethings. > > But I think you said that ;-) > > Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to rewind time and run evolution on earth > again from the start, to see what comes up in alternate histories? Do you > think intelligence would evolve again, eventually? Yes. It seems (anthropic alert!) an unavoidably likely result of the universe's ongoing process of doing more with less. All observations suggest that structures evolve to exploit increasingly complex symmetries such that global entropy accelerates. This hints at the principle more fundamental than Darwinian variation-selection-replication mentioned yesterday. This is also the message that I try to communicate to some of our friends who hold the transparent belief that Science is a Tool of Oppression. As intentional agents, by acting in accord with increasingly probable principles of effective action, we *increase* the range of diversity (degrees of freedom) available to us. - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 22 19:52:57 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:52:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60703191303n2afa51e1md0caa787e9a6fff1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703201050q1c33f332ja2444176e43a28b1@mail.gmail.com> <7641ddc60703210739y75c71585n5253801f743e5d79@mail.gmail.com> <49263.86.153.216.201.1174489287.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:55:54 -0400, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > You have to show not only that attractive people are more likely to have > sex, but also that they are more likely to have babies. I think we could probably find stats, lending some support to your counter-hypothesis, that affluent, college-educated people who have children are likely in the modern day to have fewer children than non-affluent, non-college-educated people who have children. Specifically I wonder and doubt if education or affluence are correlated positively anymore with the number of children in a family, (assuming they ever were in the first place), and suspect there may now be a negative correlation thanks to birth control. I seem to recall statistics showing what one might expect to be true: that educated people are more likely to use birth control than uneducated people. So I agree with your basic point, even I'd still bet attractive people are more likely to attract mates and have at least some number of children. Here is an abstract to a study I googled on this subject. It's bad but probably not very surprising news for weak-chinned, unattractive, asymmetrically shaped men hoping to attract mates. ==== Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes J. E. Scheib, S. W. Gangestad, R. Thornhill Abstract: Cues of phenotypic condition should be among those used by women in their choice of mates. One marker of better phenotypic condition is thought to be symmetrical bilateral body and facial features. However, it is not clear whether women use symmetry as the primary cue in assessing the phenotypic quality of potential mates or whether symmetry is correlated with other facial markers affecting physical attractiveness. Using photographs of men's faces, for which facial symmetry had been measured, we found a relationship between women's attractiveness ratings of these faces and symmetry, but the subjects could not rate facial symmetry accurately. Moreover, the relationship between facial attractiveness and symmetry was still observed, even when symmetry cues were removed by presenting only the left or right half of faces. These results suggest that attractive features other than symmetry can be used to assess phenotypic condition. We identified one such cue, facial masculinity (cheek-bone prominence and a relatively longer lower face), which was related to both symmetry and full- and half-face attractiveness. http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(wlh0n0iaddhici45otts24ia)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,15,17;journal,191,322;linkingpublicationresults,1:102024,1 From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 20:19:48 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <62c14240703191748l309c517bh1c3c42432d48aa74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <681994.5411.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Mike, Mike writes: "this definition causes a contradiction - any amount > of the known about > a thing makes it cease to be no-thing." Yeah, you're right. I did a crappy job with that. If you think of nothingness as being undefined or having an infinitely long definition (which is also what I believe), then you're right, you could gain new knowledge by exploring the nothingness idea, without ever corralling a meaningful definition of nothingness; except to know that consciousness and nothingness are not identical. "I think, therefore I am." or something like that. :-) I wonder if it can be proven theoretically that our Universe didn't start at "the very beginning" by showing that our Universe isn't infinite. I'm just spit-balling ideas here without any evidence, but, what the hell? It's fun. If a Universe was predetermined to have a positively infinite lifespan, then an observer from any "time-location" should be able to look backwards and see an infinitely long history of their own Universe, back to the "beginning". If we take positive infinity (which would represent the total lifespan of this hypothetical Universe) and divide it by any finite number (which would represent a randomly selected "time-location" for an observer) the quotient is still infinity which would correspond with the apparent "age" of the Universe from this observer's perspective. Eg. Infinite Lifespan / 2 = Infinite apparent age (where 2 represents an observer who exists halfway into the lifespan of this hypothetical Universe)(But any finite positive integer could be used as a divisor). So, I wonder if the fact that our Universe appears to be only 15 Billion years old, can be used to prove that our Universe will never become infinitely old, either because it will eventually come to an end in a Crunch, or because the birth of our Universe 15 Billion years ago did not represent the actual "very beginning", and wasn't the first origin of "something". This second alternative is so much more comforting in my opinion. :-) And I think that if we can succeed with a friendly super-intelligence we could prevent a Big Crunch from happening that otherwise might happen. For example, we could eventually get rid of surplus gravity sources by building our own black holes through compiling matter and then allowing the mass to slowly be converted into harmless Hawking Radiation. Or, just by creating a helluva lot of fusion reactions. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich --- Mike Dougherty wrote: > On 3/19/07, A B wrote: > > set of fundamental physical laws. But I would > maybe > > define "something" as that which is partially > known, > > and nothing as that which is partially unknown. > > this definition causes a contradiction - any amount > of the known about > a thing makes it cease to be no-thing. > > > it offers insights into our own Universe. Eg. If > > nothingness is also devoid of time, then why is > our > > Universe only 15 billion years old (as the > empirical > > evidence suggests)? IOW, if nothingness is devoid > of a > > chronology, or a time "flow", then why *isn't* our > > Universe either infinitely old (or nearly so)? > With > > it is not devoid of time - just that time is an > arbitrary dimension > out of which something measurable becomes > observable. There is also > an interpretation that this universe is only a > moment, but that it > instantiates with a memory we may interpret as 15 > billion years. > Perhaps the universe appears to be this old because > that's how long it > takes for stateful information to propogate through > the medium that > consciousness inhabits. Once every action/reaction > is resolved, the > event ceases to exist? (inclusive of recursive > reaction to reaction, > etc. possibly the stack is still creating new > instances without have > reached the base condition) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 23 20:38:46 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <557138.46914.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jef Allbright wrote: > All observations suggest that structures evolve to > exploit > increasingly complex symmetries such that global > entropy accelerates. > This hints at the principle more fundamental than > Darwinian > variation-selection-replication mentioned yesterday. Yes, Jef. While I respect many of Stephen Gould's ideas on evolution, he is clearly wrong in his assertion that complexity and intelligence are "accidental". I too am a biologist and I see extropy as hardwired into the universal evolution. The degrees of freedom and dimensionality of the universe increases as a function of time as the result of the increasing overall entropy. It is this increasing dimensionality that allows for open systems within the universe to iteratively achieve ever increasing complexity- just like an Mandelbrot set. Stephen Wolfram thinks similarly although I am not sure it is for the same reasons. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 01:25:28 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:25:28 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <681994.5411.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <62c14240703191748l309c517bh1c3c42432d48aa74@mail.gmail.com> <681994.5411.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3/24/07, A B wrote: If a Universe was predetermined to have a positively > infinite lifespan, then an observer from any > "time-location" should be able to look backwards and > see an infinitely long history of their own Universe, > back to the "beginning". If we take positive infinity > (which would represent the total lifespan of this > hypothetical Universe) and divide it by any finite > number (which would represent a randomly selected > "time-location" for an observer) the quotient is still > infinity which would correspond with the apparent > "age" of the Universe from this observer's > perspective. Not really: if you stand at any finite number you can always look backward to zero, but you are only at an infinitesimal proportion of infinity if you look forward. You might say it is surprising that we find ourselves at such a low number as 15 billion, but it would be equally surprising for us to find ourselves at any other finite number, however large. And that's if the distribution of observers is uniform over the infinite span of the universe's existence: if the probability of observers arising or surviving decreases as time increases, it can turn out that there is a high probability that an observer would find himself in the first n years of the universe's existence. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 01:36:13 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:36:13 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <557138.46914.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> References: <557138.46914.qm@web60517.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3/24/07, The Avantguardian wrote: Yes, Jef. While I respect many of Stephen Gould's > ideas on evolution, he is clearly wrong in his > assertion that complexity and intelligence are > "accidental". I too am a biologist and I see extropy > as hardwired into the universal evolution. The degrees > of freedom and dimensionality of the universe > increases as a function of time as the result of the > increasing overall entropy. It is this increasing > dimensionality that allows for open systems within the > universe to iteratively achieve ever increasing > complexity- just like an Mandelbrot set. Stephen > Wolfram thinks similarly although I am not sure it is > for the same reasons. Is the fact that once a replicator molecule develops, it will take hold and evolve in response to environmental changes and competition from other replicators "non-accidental"? That is, could it logically have been otherwise? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 24 02:31:08 2007 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <112672.46275.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> --- Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 3/24/07, The Avantguardian > wrote: > > Yes, Jef. While I respect many of Stephen Gould's > > ideas on evolution, he is clearly wrong in his > > assertion that complexity and intelligence are > > "accidental". I too am a biologist and I see > extropy > > as hardwired into the universal evolution. The > degrees > > of freedom and dimensionality of the universe > > increases as a function of time as the result of > the > > increasing overall entropy. It is this increasing > > dimensionality that allows for open systems within > the > > universe to iteratively achieve ever increasing > > complexity- just like an Mandelbrot set. Stephen > > Wolfram thinks similarly although I am not sure it > is > > for the same reasons. > > > Is the fact that once a replicator molecule > develops, it will take hold and > evolve in response to environmental changes and > competition from other > replicators "non-accidental"? That is, could it > logically have been > otherwise? Yes. That is the mathematical truth of chaos theory: Everything depends on initial conditions and thereafter unpredictable phenomena can be completely deterministic and deterministic phenomena can be completely unpredictable and not even statistics can tell the difference. Keep in mind that that jibes with general relativity's idea of the future simply being a geometrical dimension of which we are ignorant except in the few simple cases of gravitational orbits that we can solve. Stuart LaForge alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu "Nature which governs the whole will soon change all things which thou seest, and out of their substance will make other things, and again other things from the substance of them, in order that the world may be ever new." -Marcus Aurelius, Philosopher and Emperor of Rome. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 03:57:17 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:57:17 +1100 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <112672.46275.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> References: <112672.46275.qm@web60516.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3/24/07, The Avantguardian wrote: > Is the fact that once a replicator molecule > > develops, it will take hold and > > evolve in response to environmental changes and > > competition from other > > replicators "non-accidental"? That is, could it > > logically have been > > otherwise? > > Yes. That is the mathematical truth of chaos theory: > Everything depends on initial conditions and > thereafter unpredictable phenomena can be completely > deterministic and deterministic phenomena can be > completely unpredictable and not even statistics can > tell the difference. I see that the term "accidental" could be confusing. I take it as meaning in this context that order might "accidentally" arise from disorder, without any supernatural influences. However, we could also say that since this is bound to happen it is "no accident". Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Mar 24 04:08:29 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:08:29 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing In-Reply-To: <681994.5411.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <62c14240703191748l309c517bh1c3c42432d48aa74@mail.gmail.com> <681994.5411.qm@web37415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240703232108v2ca1214fh315412b624567c31@mail.gmail.com> On 3/23/07, A B wrote: > Hi Mike, > I wonder if it can be proven theoretically that our > Universe didn't start at "the very beginning" by > showing that our Universe isn't infinite. I'm just > spit-balling ideas here without any evidence, but, > what the hell? It's fun. > > Infinite Lifespan / 2 = Infinite apparent age I imagine you'll like this application of the countably infinite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel I wonder if it can be proven (or even agreed possible) that the universe hasn't even started yet - and that we're still gaining activation potential for the next "Real" something to take place. I searched google for some reference to a visualization I once read about the world of illusion (samsara) being created each time Atman(1) opens his eyes to look, then for a time there is only the contemplation of what was seen. If there is such belief in the reality of Atman it is only a character in the transient dreams of Brahman(2) (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_%28Buddhism%29 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman (*) don't discount the potential for new thought just because these ideas seem religious/buddhist - it's just a cool visualization (imho) From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Mar 25 00:52:04 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:52:04 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org><20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > [Eugen wrote] > > You can go back to the snapshot frames, and and resume from there, > > but it doesn't change the end result. But you can't shortcut to the > > end result without doing the work. That's certainly true. "Doing the work" is doing the computation. And, to me, that necessarily involves future states depending causally on previous states. > But once you have done the work, you can take the snapshots and > run the computation a second time out of sequence, e.g. running the > first minute last and the last minute first. Would the inhabitants of the > simulation notice that something unusual had happened? I agree, Stathis, they would not. As you explain, if they could, it would only mean that the deterministic computation had gone awry somehow. Let me consider a concrete case, which could be implemented on a Life board. Let's say that 100 trillion generations follow one another according to the rules of Life, and are implemented in a real, causally deterministic machine of some kind (thereby satisfying my causality criterion). Let's further suppose that this emulates the conscious experience of someone or something. Then your experiment says that if we were to checkpoint generation number 1, and checkpoint generation number 50 trillion, then we might re-run the computation, except doing the second half first. That's perfectly sensible, and would deliver, in my opinion, almost all the experience that the individual in question obtained during the first run. Of all 100 trillion states, all but the initial state is/was computed during the first run. But in the scenario where the second half is re-run first, then state number 50 trillion is not *caused*, is not *computed* by any previous state. It is pulled off the shelf, so to speak. It is merely "looked up". So what? What is one or two states out of 100 trillion? That's why, to me, this Greg Egan type thought experiment makes perfect sense. But what if only 9 out of 10 generations are computed, and the other 1 out of 10 are looked up? Then I must suppose that the extent of the conscious experience is diminished by one-tenth! I am forced to take this stand, because if we take an ultimate limit, and merely have static, frozen states scattered across space, then there occurs no activity, no computation, no causality, and no experience whatever. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Mar 25 04:44:36 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:44:36 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/25/07, Lee Corbin wrote: Let me consider a concrete case, which could be implemented on a Life > board. Let's say that 100 trillion generations follow one another > according > to the rules of Life, and are implemented in a real, causally > deterministic > machine of some kind (thereby satisfying my causality criterion). > Let's further suppose that this emulates the conscious experience of > someone or something. Then your experiment says that if we were to > checkpoint generation number 1, and checkpoint generation number > 50 trillion, then we might re-run the computation, except doing the > second half first. > > That's perfectly sensible, and would deliver, in my opinion, almost all > the > experience that the individual in question obtained during the first run. > Of all 100 trillion states, all but the initial state is/was computed > during > the first run. But in the scenario where the second half is re-run first, > then state number 50 trillion is not *caused*, is not *computed* by > any previous state. It is pulled off the shelf, so to speak. It is > merely > "looked up". > > So what? What is one or two states out of 100 trillion? That's why, to > me, this Greg Egan type thought experiment makes perfect sense. > > But what if only 9 out of 10 generations are computed, and the other 1 > out of 10 are looked up? Then I must suppose that the extent of the > conscious experience is diminished by one-tenth! I am forced to take > this stand, because if we take an ultimate limit, and merely have static, > frozen states scattered across space, then there occurs no activity, no > computation, no causality, and no experience whatever. If that were so, then the Life inhabitant would be a zombie during the looked up frames. An external observer would note the patterns on the board, would see light entering the subject's eyes, would see the subject pressing the button to register that he has perceived the light, but in fact the subject would not perceive anything. Moreover, at the next frame, which is computed, the subject would suddenly remember perceiving the light and have no recollection that anything unusual had happened. We could make the example more complex. Suppose that frame by frame, a gradually increasing number of squares on the Life board are looked up, while the remainder are computed according to the usual rules. What would happen when the squares representing half the subject's visual field are looked up? He would notice that he couldn't see anything on the right and might exclaim, "Hey, I think I'm having a stroke!" But the computation is proceeding deterministically just the same as if all the squares were computed; there is no way it could run off in a different direction so that the subject notices his perception changing and changes his behaviour accordingly. This is analogous to David Chalmer's "fading qualia" argument against the idea that replacement of neurons by silicon chips will result in zombification: http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at posthuman.com Sun Mar 25 04:35:41 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:35:41 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] SpaceX launch attempt later today In-Reply-To: <4601D22A.9070901@posthuman.com> References: <200703220029.l2M0TBQ6018706@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4601D22A.9070901@posthuman.com> Message-ID: <4605FC1D.2060904@posthuman.com> Here's an update... sounds pretty good and easily fixable: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5056 Falcon I flight - preliminary assessment positive for SpaceX By Chris Bergin, 3/24/2007 11:14:51 PM SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has noted that the preliminary assessment of the Falcon I flight shows that the second stage shut down only a minute before schedule - and still managed to deploy its satellite mass simulator ring. The shutdown appears to have been caused by the sloshing of propellant in the LOX tank, increasing observed oscillation, which would normally have been successfully dampened out by the second stage Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system. However, the impact on the second stage nozzle during separation caused a 'hard slew' correction, over-compensating previously simulated The Falcon I launch vehicle lifted off from its Kwajalein Atoll launch pad in the Pacific Ocean last week, putting behind the failure - which occurred just seconds into first stage flight ascent ? of its debut launch a year ago. Although the video of the launch webcast cut off just after 5 minutes of flight, SpaceX have now gained visuals from the entire flight, past the point of the premature second stage shutdown. 'Except for a few blips here and there, we have now recovered video and telemetry for the entire mission, including well past 2nd stage shutdown, which only occurred about a minute before schedule (roughly T + 7.5 mins),' noted Musk to NASASpaceflight.com. 'Including all the video, we have somewhere close to a terabyte of information to review. 'This was far too much to send over the T1 satellite link from Kwaj and had to be brought over in person after the flight. A number of our engineers have only just returned from Kwaj and we have not had a chance to caucus, so please consider this still a preliminary assessment.' As observed on the webcast, an increasing level of oscillation could be seen on the second stage. While this is initially being blamed on the sloshing of propellant in the LOX tank, SpaceX had simulated - and planned for - such a scenario. However, the impact on the second stage nozzle, which was subsequently corrected by the TVC system, added an extra - unexpected - parameter for the TVC to counter. 'In a nutshell, the data appears to show that the increasing oscillation of the second stage was due to the slosh frequency in the LOX tank coupling with the thrust vector control system,' added Musk. 'Our simulations prior to flight had led us to believe that the control system would be able to damp out slosh, however we had not accounted for the perturbations of an impact on the stage during separation, followed by a hard slew to get back on track.' While the impact observed during separation failed to damage the second stage engine's nozzle, the cause is currently being blamed on the vehicle's rotation being fives times higher than the expected maximum. 'The nozzle impact during stage separation occurred due to a much higher than expected vehicle rotation rate of about 2.5 deg/sec vs. the maximum expected of 0.5 deg/sec. As the 2nd stage nozzle exited the interstage, the first stage was rotating so fast that it smacked the niobium nozzle,' Musk noted. 'There was no apparent damage to the nozzle, which is not a big surprise given that niobium is tough stuff. 'The unexpectedly high rotation rate was due to not knowing the shutdown transient of the 1st stage engine (Merlin) under flight conditions. The actual shutdown transient had a very high pitch over force, causing five times the max expected rotation rate.' Initial commentary in the media was based mainly on five minutes of webcasted video. However, now that the full video and data has now been acquired by SpaceX, a number of bonuses have been noted. 'On the plus side, the data shows that this is the only thing that stopped the Falcon 1 test flight 2 from reaching full orbital velocity,' said Musk. 'The second stage was otherwise functioning well and even deployed the satellite mass simulator ring at end of flight!' More evaluations will follow, as SpaceX engineers pore over the vast amount of data they now have available to them. The initial findings raise the hopes of medium level modifications being able to correct the issues noted. 'We definitely want both the diagnosis and cure vetted by third party experts, however we believe that the slosh issue can be dealt with easily by adding more baffles, particularly in the LOX tank. The Merlin shutdown transient can be addressed by initiating shutdown at a much lower G level, albeit at some risk to engine reusability. 'Provided we have a good set of slosh baffles, even another nozzle impact at stage separation would not pose a significant flight risk (although obviously we will work hard to avoid that).' -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From observatio at gmail.com Sun Mar 25 20:05:44 2007 From: observatio at gmail.com (observatio at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:05:44 +0300 Subject: [extropy-chat] Folding@home Message-ID: <41afabf30703251305s216726bfu2bba72e3a10b94cb@mail.gmail.com> Hello! We all wait for future with some amount of impatience. Some of us are working towards making it come sooner, others are waiting, spreading information, discussing the issues, etc., etc. Some time ago I have found the way to contribute to science even if you are not doing the research. I am talking about distributed computing that is open to any volunteers. A project like Folding at home (http://folding.stanford.edu/) is one such wonderful project that deals with protein folding and misfolding issues. With recently allowing Sony PlayStation 3 computers to do the computational work, they have been able to reach a Petaflop (1000 TFlops or 10^15 floating point ops/s) level. If you have your computer for reading emails, browsing the web, watching movies or similar tasks, lots of unused computation power is lost in idle cycles. Instead it is possible to put those unused resources to work for the science. Maybe it is even worth creating Extropian team in Folding at home and make our contribution? Regards! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun Mar 25 21:17:22 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:17:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis and I appear to be seeing eye to eye on this topic, or at least you are understanding my argument, even though you may or may not be in entire agreement with it. As far as I can tell, I'm agreeing with you. Check this out: > > I am forced to take this stand [that looked-up states don't > > deliver experience], because if we take an ultimate limit, and > > merely have static, frozen states scattered across space, then > > there occurs no activity, no computation, no causality, and no > > experience whatever. > > If that were so, then the Life inhabitant would be a zombie during > the looked up frames. An external observer would note the > patterns on the board, would see light entering the subject's eyes, > would see the subject pressing the button to register that he has > perceived the light, but in fact the subject would not perceive > anything. Yes---there would *be* no subject. > Moreover, at the next frame, which is computed, the subject would > suddenly remember perceiving the light and have no recollection that > anything unusual had happened. That's right. It takes us back to the by-now old observation that God could have created the universe 1 second ago, and we'd be none the wiser. > We could make the example more complex. Suppose that frame by > frame, a gradually increasing number of squares on the Life board > are looked up, while the remainder are computed according to the > usual rules... Yes, over an increasing area, values are not computed but pulled-in, in an arbitrary seeming fashion from some place > ...What would happen when the squares representing half the > subject's visual field are looked up? He would notice that he > couldn't see anything on the right and might exclaim, "Hey... As you know, he cannot have any such reaction... > But the computation is proceeding deterministically just the > same as if all the squares were computed; there is no way it > could run off in a different direction so that the subject notices > his perception changing and changes his behaviour accordingly. Right. > This is analogous to David Chalmer's "fading qualia" argument > against the idea that replacement of neurons by silicon chips > will result in zombification: Oh, I never heard of that. Hmm, I suppose that what you and Chalmers are really asserting is that the subject has fewer "qualia" over time, but only insofar---to rephrase it---as he is becoming less an actual subject moment by moment. I confess to extreme pain in composing any sentence containing the term "qualia" without taking a derogatory swipe at it. It's the worst concept in all of philosophy. But what causes me other pain, not so intense though, is having to takes sides against functionalism, or at least my understanding of it. Yes, sigh, I have to agree that "zombification" and "zombies" as a concept do make sense. But! I buy the anti-zombie arguments TOTALLY when they apply to ordinary causal processes. That is, I sneer at the idea that robots or AI could function the way we do without conscious awareness. So, sadly, I'm reduced to a 99.9% functionalist. Show me a working device that looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and acts like a duck, and I'll agree that it's a duck. But then I will back off if you somehow are able to make the case that in this particular instance it is not a causal process. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sun Mar 25 23:31:16 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:31:16 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> On 3/25/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > So, sadly, I'm reduced to a 99.9% functionalist. Show me a > working device that looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and > acts like a duck, and I'll agree that it's a duck. But then I will > back off if you somehow are able to make the case that in > this particular instance it is not a causal process. > Since when is database lookup not a causal process? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 26 02:09:30 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:09:30 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org><20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org><01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > On 3/25/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > So, sadly, I'm reduced to a 99.9% functionalist. Show me a > > working device that looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and > > acts like a duck, and I'll agree that it's a duck. But then I will > > back off if you somehow are able to make the case that in > > this particular instance it is not a causal process. > > Since when is database lookup not a causal process? Yes, it itself is a causal process, but it blocks the information flow from one state to the next for the process in question. Or, if you think of it in Life terms, the information contained in one generation doesn't directly give rise to the next generation. Instead, it's funneled through the lookup table. For example, say that you create a perfect hash of the present state, or present generation, and interpret this as an address in the lookup table, and the "next" generation, or state, is supposed to be stored at that address. But exactly what is stored there is rather arbitrary; what is stored there is not necessarily the same computation as generated by the rules of Life, or your physics. Naturally, to achieve a realistic simulation (though, I claim, a failed emulation) of a person or conscious process, you would have the correct next state stored at that address. (If you were to change one pixel in the generation, then the address could be vastly different. But in the real computations which exemplify what we think is going on in a conscious program, or would be going on in a giant Life board, a tiny change only makes a small and *local* change in the next state.) This is a crucial point, and, I think, a difficult one. Thanks to anyone who can either explain it better or shed light on it. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 02:31:04 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:31:04 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/26/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > We could make the example more complex. Suppose that frame by > > frame, a gradually increasing number of squares on the Life board > > are looked up, while the remainder are computed according to the > > usual rules... > > Yes, over an increasing area, values are not computed but pulled-in, > in an arbitrary seeming fashion from some place > > > ...What would happen when the squares representing half the > > subject's visual field are looked up? He would notice that he > > couldn't see anything on the right and might exclaim, "Hey... > > As you know, he cannot have any such reaction... > > > But the computation is proceeding deterministically just the > > same as if all the squares were computed; there is no way it > > could run off in a different direction so that the subject notices > > his perception changing and changes his behaviour accordingly. > > Right. > > > This is analogous to David Chalmer's "fading qualia" argument > > against the idea that replacement of neurons by silicon chips > > will result in zombification: > > Oh, I never heard of that. Hmm, I suppose that what you and Chalmers > are really asserting is that the subject has fewer "qualia" over time, > but only insofar---to rephrase it---as he is becoming less an actual > subject moment by moment. No, the argument asserts that he *can't* have fewer experiences over time (that's a standard English word with the same meaning as "qualia") as his neurons or squares are being replaced, so that gradual zombification is impossible. This is because you can't have a half-zombie state where, for example, half your neurons are replaced and although the whole person says "yes, I can see the light" for the benefit of external observers, internally you are thinking "I can't see the light". If this were possible, it would disprove computationalism, because you would be having a different thought ( i.e. that you can't see the light) even though the physical processes in your non-replaced brain are and have to be exactly the same as they would have been before the brain was replaced. That is, your consciousness would have to magically drift off in a different direction, decoupled from the physical activity presumed to be underpinning it. And if gradual zombification by gradual replacement cannot happen, then sudden total zombification when the last neuron or last square is replaced also cannot happen, for it is absurd to think that your entire consciousness could be sutained by one neuron or one square. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 02:46:19 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 03:46:19 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> On 3/26/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > This is a crucial point, and, I think, a difficult one. Thanks to anyone > who can either explain it better or shed light on it. I understand what you're saying, but I think your intuition is misleading you. I think this is like the problem people had with Newtonian mechanics, relativity and quantum mechanics, where intuition developed in one kind of situation gives the wrong answer in another. (After all, in the situations we usually encounter, our intuition that database lookups don't give rise to consciousness is correct - just as our intuition that motion is perceptible, time doesn't slow down when you walk faster and tennis balls can't jump through the net without touching it is correct.) The physics analogy holds a bit further I think. There's some interesting work being done lately in terms of holographic models, M-theory, the physics of black holes, the Bekenstein information bound etc, that suggests what looks like local interaction in one frame of reference, is highly nonlocal in another. In other words, if that sort of consideration is important then we would have to equally claim we aren't conscious, because although the physical processes in our brains look direct/local from our usual perspective, in another equally valid frame of reference they are highly nonlocal. I think the obvious way out of this is to say that if there's a causal chain then there's a causal chain; it doesn't matter whether our intuitions happen to be good at recognizing the particular shape of that chain. (Note that this is very different from the Swamp Man scenario where information is generated from random quantum fluctuations at an improbability factor of two to the power of a zillion to one against. In that scenario, it would be reasonable to call it non-causal.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Mar 26 15:16:25 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:16:25 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] CONF: ICAT - Artificial Reality and Telexistence Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070326091340.0301f2d0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> >Announcing the ICAT (International Conference for Artificial Reality and >Telexistence) and Art Abilitation 2007 > >Please see attached. > >Note that the ICAT is the oldest international conference on Virtual >Reality and has never before been outside of Asia - Pacific. It is with >great please we invite papers for the inaugural event that is being hosted >in Esbjerg, Denmark. Please see www.icat2007.org >http://www.icat2007.org > >ICAT2007 will be supported by the second ArtAbilitation international >conference. >Please see www.artabilitation.net >http://www.artabilitation.net > >Call for papers deadline is July 1st 2007 > >A great line up of keynote speakers - some that we are sure you will know >well.... Proposed (with positive responses to date) are including - Roy >Ascott, Jeffrey Shaw, Myron Krueger... Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium 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 lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 26 17:04:15 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:04:15 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <024001c76fc9$0ccf2480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > > Hmm, I suppose that what you and Chalmers > > are really asserting is that the subject has fewer > > "qualia" over time, but only insofar---to rephrase it > > ---as he is becoming less an actual subject moment > > by moment. > No, the argument asserts that he *can't* have fewer experiences over time Oh, okay. > (that's a standard English word with the same meaning as "qualia") as his > neurons or squares are being replaced, so that gradual zombification is > impossible. This is because you can't have a half-zombie state where, for > example, half your neurons are replaced and although the whole person > says "yes, I can see the light" for the benefit of external observers, internally > you are thinking "I can't see the light".... I agree that you cannot be having different internal thoughts. Yes indeed, this would mean that a bizarre state had been reached by the subject's brain. Since we are just rehearsing previous deterministic runs, that would, yes, be quite impossible. As you write > your consciousness would have to magically drift off in a different direction, > decoupled from the physical activity presumed to be underpinning it. And if > gradual zombification by gradual replacement cannot happen, then sudden > total zombification when the last neuron or last square is replaced also cannot > happen, for it is absurd to think that your entire consciousness could be > sustained by one neuron or one square. Well, the zombification that I am talking about works quite differently. Suppose for a moment that I am right about states having to be causally connected in order for there to be information flow, and in order for there to be an internal experiencer. Then it would follow that a sequence of looked up states could not be conscious. Then one would have a classic zombie. That is, if we are presented with a robot that appears to be conscious, and behaves absolutely no differently from anything we could expect, then I might under extremely fantastical conditions be persuaded that it is a zombie. These conditions would be that (i) we were ourselves merely being recomputed from sessions that our original selves had particapted in long ago, (ii) the robot's states are not being computed, but merely copied from that long-ago run. In this case, a lookup table is very simple: the next state of the robot is just fetched from an ordered list. It's as though we were seeing a movie of the robot. So I'll say that theoretically a zombie is possible. It's just as Eugen pointed out, the resources required are ridiculous. Certainly any device before me that passed the Turing Test, would be, in my opinion quite conscious. But I would be assuming that its successive states would be being computed. Lee P.S. I am hoping that this also answers some of Russell's objections, or at least makes clearer what I was trying to say to him. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 26 17:15:08 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:15:08 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org><20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org><01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com><020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > I understand what you're saying, but I think your intuition is misleading you. > I think this is like the problem people had with Newtonian mechanics, relativity > and quantum mechanics, where intuition developed in one kind of situation > gives the wrong answer in another. Oh, :-) that's always possible! > The physics analogy holds a bit further I think. There's some interesting work > being done lately in terms of holographic models, M-theory, the physics of > black holes, the Bekenstein information bound etc, that suggests what looks > like local interaction in one frame of reference, is highly nonlocal in another. > In other words, if that sort of consideration is important then we would have > to equally claim we aren't conscious, because although the physical processes > in our brains look direct/local from our usual perspective, in another equally > valid frame of reference they are highly nonlocal. Well, all that "interesting work" is itself highly speculative. I don't have much belief yet in non-local models. When that kind of talk starts, what is to stop us from concluding that rocks are conscious? Or that some arbitrary patterns of atoms in the solar system succeeding each other is not having experiences? Even if that were in some incredibly bizarre way true, it would still have nothing to do with the way we evolved, and how our values apply to familiar local causal processes (e.g. *that* tiger, or *this* pussy cat, etc.) Lee > I think the obvious way out of this is to say that if there's a causal chain then there's a causal chain; it doesn't matter > whether our intuitions happen to be good at recognizing the particular shape of that chain. > (Note that this is very different from the Swamp Man scenario where information is generated from random quantum fluctuations at > an improbability factor of two to the power of a zillion to one against. In that scenario, it would be reasonable to call it > non-causal.) < _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Mar 26 16:15:47 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:15:47 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] NEWS: "Reviewing the Future" Summit 2007 Montreal April 19-22 Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070326094555.042d9ff0@pop-server.austin.rr.com> I'd like to invite you to the first International Planetary Collegium Summit. Please read below: The "Reviewing the Future: Vision, Innovation, Emergence" Summit will be held in Montreal from April 19 to 22, 2007, on the premises of University of Quebec in Montreal?s Coeur des Sciences. Among the speakers are many internationally recognized artists, thinkers and researchers, such as Roy Ascott, founder of the Planetary Collegium, transdisciplinary artist Victoria Vesna http://vv.arts.ucla.edu/projects/current.php, astrophysicist Roger Malina, nanotechnologist James Gimzewski, philosopher Pierre L?vy, culture theoretician Derrick de Kerckhove, media artist and theoretician Bill Seaman http://digitalmedia.risd.edu/billseam and many others, including me (Natasha). "[T]he summit will allow 65 presenters from fifteen countries to share the results of their latest works and researches with their guests, and with the Quebec media arts and technologies community. The Summit will be an occasion for members of the different nodes of the Collegium (Plymouth, Beijing, Milan and Zurich, which will soon be joined by Seoul and Sao Paulo), along with several members pursuing their research on an individual basis as part of this international network, to get together. Many of these are amongst the best known artist/researchers of their fields. "Through mostly transdisciplinary research, calling upon artists, scientists, engineers, philosophers, educators and communications specialists, the Collegium is contributing to the production of new knowledge in the field of media arts and to the transfer of this knowledge to other fields. Computer science, communications, research on consciousness, biotechnologies, cognitive sciences, hypermedia, variable environments, robotics are but a few of the disciplines whose development feeds and informs the Collegium research in all artistic disciplines : performance, dance, architecture, new narrative forms, music, installations, design, performing arts and the arts of the screen. Although the Summit is first and foremost an occasion to come in contact with unique artistic approaches, which cannot be classified into traditional fields and are at the cutting edge of contemporary practice, several presentations will discuss the theoretical, cultural, social, educational, museological and environmental stakes of these practices." For further information and registration: http://summit.planetary-collegium.net. Information can be found at http://www.transhumanist.biz/ Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium 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 russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 17:36:10 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:36:10 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> On 3/26/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Well, all that "interesting work" is itself highly speculative. Granted, but it's speculative physics, taken seriously by some of the best minds in the field. Your objections would appear to suggest ruling out a theory of _physics_ (as opposed to philosophy) by pure armchair thought - which not only suggests that future experimental verification of said theory might overturn those objections, but also suggests they should be discarded right now on grounds of category error. I don't have much > belief yet in non-local models. When that kind of talk starts, what is to > stop > us from concluding that rocks are conscious? Or that some arbitrary > patterns > of atoms in the solar system succeeding each other is not having > experiences? *shrug* Nothing if you want to go that route, but that's a completely different kind of thing from Hash-Life Man. How do you test whether an entity is conscious? The most obvious method is to have a conversation with it. To have a conversation with Rock Man, you would have to build a "decoding device" that actually contains all the information in Rock Man's mind. It is then obvious to any reasonable person that Rock Man's consciousness resides in the "decoding device", not in the rock. By contrast, you can have a perfectly normal conversation with Hash-Life Man anytime you want, and he will truthfully report being fully conscious. Nor would you have doubted this in any way until some engineer remarked "oh, the computer actually uses database lookup of partial results instead of redoing the arithmetic wherever possible". Suppose _you_ (a future upload of you) were Hash-Life Man cheerfully having a conversation until the engineer came into the room and remarked about the database lookup design, and the person talking to you went "oh, ugh, you're half a zombie then!" how would you react? Would you conclude "well I _feel_ perfectly conscious, but I guess I must really be half unconscious no matter how I feel"? Do you still not see anything wrong with the intuition that led you down this track? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 18:53:26 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:53:26 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <024001c76fc9$0ccf2480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <024001c76fc9$0ccf2480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240703261153o74cf6229k9574134628609afc@mail.gmail.com> On 3/26/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis writes > Well, the zombification that I am talking about works quite differently. > Suppose for a moment that I am right about states having to be > causally connected in order for there to be information flow, and > in order for there to be an internal experiencer. Then it would follow > that a sequence of looked up states could not be conscious. Then > one would have a classic zombie. wouldn't the causal connection be in the sequence followed between each hash entry? I don't think there is a violation of causality in that case, even if it results in a non-intuitive perception of continuity. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 18:56:32 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:56:32 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703261156o5745afddm3ebc1dcd59fcb9ef@mail.gmail.com> On 3/25/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Moreover, at the next frame, which is computed, the subject would > > suddenly remember perceiving the light and have no recollection that > > anything unusual had happened. > > That's right. It takes us back to the by-now old observation that God > could have created the universe 1 second ago, and we'd be none the > wiser. ### I would disagree here. From what I know about physics of our world you cannot predict the future of a physical system at an arbitrary point in its trajectory without precisely tracing the whole trajectory, or rather, the sheaf of possible trajectories of the system over time. If all you know is the state S1 at time T1, you have to recapitulate the whole multiverse in the light cone starting at T1 with state S1, to describe the probability distribution of all states at any time T2 after T1. Assuming that the god we are talking about is not capable of making A and ~A hold true, even a god must calculate all the billions of years of swirling hydrogen to make a Lee. The same applies to the consciousness simulated on a GLUT - lookup of the state of a physical system *is* a calculation of that state. It is computationally impossible to "compute" only select "frames", you must run the whole film. The same pertains to a non-periodic CA - you really have to run the whole calculation from state #1 to state #1000 to actually see state #1000. So, no time-sovereign god and no zombies are possible. Rafal From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Mar 26 18:02:43 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:02:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Eavesdropping on the Copernican School of Consciousness: "...a stream of consciousness survives fragmentation of the process..." [What is this stream of consciousness that can be conceived independently of the process?] "...consciousness supervenes on the instantaneous computational state..." [ditto...] "...you can take the snapshots and run the computation a second time out of sequence, e.g. running the first minute last and the last minute first. Would the inhabitants of the simulation notice that something unusual had happened?" [From what point of view would one observe this? This seems like those science fiction stories where "time is warped", and the more sensitive individuals say "did you feel that?"] "Suppose for a moment that I am right about states having to be causally connected in order for there to be information flow, and in order for there to be an internal experiencer." [I understand describing a system having experience, but having "an internal experiencer"?] I enjoy precise thought and there's a good amount of that going on here, but some of it is precise in the way of Copernicus describing the apparent motion of celestial bodies. Elaborate epicycles constructed to preserve the assumption of a privileged reference point. It's not about whether or not qualia exist, but about whether the concept adds anything of value. - Jef From eugen at leitl.org Mon Mar 26 19:16:05 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:16:05 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 06:36:10PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > How do you test whether an entity is conscious? The most obvious > method is to have a conversation with it. Very much so. > To have a conversation with Rock Man, you would have to build a > "decoding device" that actually contains all the information in Rock > Man's mind. It is then obvious to any reasonable person that Rock > Man's consciousness resides in the "decoding device", not in the rock. > By contrast, you can have a perfectly normal conversation with > Hash-Life Man anytime you want, and he will truthfully report being Life Man, yes. Hash Life man, not so fast. From "Mind Children", pp. 157- "But what if one wants to see the calculation in progress, as in the Newway story? At first Gosper tried simply displaying the partial answers as they were computed. The results were bizarre. The program advanced the simulated time in different portions of the space at different rates. Sometimes it even retreats in places, because some regions are described by more than one pyramid, and the different pyramids are not computed at the same times. A single glider advancing across the screen would cause a display where gliders would appear and disappear in odd places almost at random, sometimes several in view, sometimes none. Constraining the program so that it never reversed time in any displayed cell improved things only slightly. The best solution turned out to be not to display at all until the calculation was finished. The pattern might start out a billion cells on a side (necessarily mostly empty space!) and its future would be calculated for a half-billion time-steps. The full history of the calculation would end up compactly encoded in the hash table. A separate program could then invovke the table entries to view the universe at any given time. The viewing program allowed Gosper to scan, goldlike, forward and backward in time though the evolving Life pattern. Where did that glider come from? Here it is at time 100000. It wasn't there at 50000. Nor at 75000. Aha! This collision just before 80000 generated it. Let's look at this step by step... But what if Cellticks were to evolve in a hashlife space? By encoding their universe and its evolution in such an efficient way, Gosper has played them a dirty trick. What they perceive as the steady flow of time for the most part does not exist. The hashlife program skips over large chunks of spacetime without going thorugh all the tedious intermediate steps. The Cellticks may have memories of things that never actually happened, though they were mathematically implied from their past. ..." (Wow, excellent treatment. I thought the image was mine, but apparently I stole it from Moravec). > fully conscious. Nor would you have doubted this in any way until some > engineer remarked "oh, the computer actually uses database lookup of > partial results instead of redoing the arithmetic wherever possible". > Suppose _you_ (a future upload of you) were Hash-Life Man cheerfully > having a conversation until the engineer came into the room and > remarked about the database lookup design, and the person talking to > you went "oh, ugh, you're half a zombie then!" how would you react? > Would you conclude "well I _feel_ perfectly conscious, but I guess I > must really be half unconscious no matter how I feel"? How can you have a conversation with an entity which has a nonlinear spacetime plot? The Hash Life springs to the target state, doing something highly nonlinear in-between. Target states are static, and nonlinear evolution doesn't make conversations possible, unless we fall back to the degenerate state: targetting subsequent states only. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amara at amara.com Mon Mar 26 19:25:03 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:25:03 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Public Lecture: Surfing with Wavelets Message-ID: For you MIT-area people, a talk for you: http://www.claymath.org/public_lectures/daubechies2.php ** Surfing with wavelets ** Ingrid Daubechies, Princeton University Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 7:00 PM Kirsch Auditorium (Room 32 -123) MIT, Stata Center Cambridge, Massachusetts In this talk, Princeton mathematics professor Ingrid Daubechies will explain the basic principles of wavelets and illustrate how they are used by scientists as a mathematical tool in many different applications. Wavelets give a new approach to the analysis of sounds and images, and are used in many other applications. The wavelet transform provides the mathematical analog of a music score: just as the score tells a musician which notes to play when, the wavelet analysis of a sound takes things apart into elementary units with a well defined frequency (which note?) and a well defined time (when?). For images, wavelets allow you to first describe the coarse features with a broad brush, and then later to fill in details, as with the zoom function of a camera. The wavelet transform is sometimes called a "mathematical micropscope." -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Mar 26 18:17:17 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:17:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/26/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 3/26/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Well, all that "interesting work" is itself highly speculative. > > Granted, but it's speculative physics, taken seriously by some of the best > minds in the field. Your objections would appear to suggest ruling out a > theory of _physics_ (as opposed to philosophy) by pure armchair thought - > which not only suggests that future experimental verification of said theory > might overturn those objections, but also suggests they should be discarded > right now on grounds of category error. > > > I don't have much > > belief yet in non-local models. When that kind of talk starts, what is to > stop > > us from concluding that rocks are conscious? Or that some arbitrary > patterns > > of atoms in the solar system succeeding each other is not having > experiences? > > *shrug* Nothing if you want to go that route, but that's a completely > different kind of thing from Hash-Life Man. > > How do you test whether an entity is conscious? The most obvious method is > to have a conversation with it. > > To have a conversation with Rock Man, you would have to build a "decoding > device" that actually contains all the information in Rock Man's mind. It is > then obvious to any reasonable person that Rock Man's consciousness resides > in the "decoding device", not in the rock. > > By contrast, you can have a perfectly normal conversation with Hash-Life Man > anytime you want, and he will truthfully report being fully conscious. Nor > would you have doubted this in any way until some engineer remarked "oh, the > computer actually uses database lookup of partial results instead of redoing > the arithmetic wherever possible". Suppose _you_ (a future upload of you) > were Hash-Life Man cheerfully having a conversation until the engineer came > into the room and remarked about the database lookup design, and the person > talking to you went "oh, ugh, you're half a zombie then!" how would you > react? Would you conclude "well I _feel_ perfectly conscious, but I guess I > must really be half unconscious no matter how I feel"? > > Do you still not see anything wrong with the intuition that led you down > this track? To amplify Russell's remarks somewhat, there's an assumption running through this thread that there can be "information" without an observer, thus the talk about "information flowing" during a "causal process", but not in the case of a lookup table. There's an essential subjective element that's being ignored here. Just as any pattern of bits may be validly said to "be random" or to "contain information", it depends on the observer. Without specifying the observer, the statement is meaningless. - Jef From russell.wallace at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 20:17:36 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:17:36 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> On 3/26/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > How can you have a conversation with an entity which has a nonlinear > spacetime plot? The Hash Life springs to the target state, doing something > highly nonlinear in-between. > By appropriate choice of target state. For conversation, you only need a readout every X clock cycles, for a value of X that depends on the implementation details but will in any case be significantly greater than 1; and as you say, the computation in between will jump back and forth in a way that looks very strange to our eyes. If the objections raised were correct, that would make Hash-Life Man a mostly-zombie - an entity even more implausible than a total zombie, once you start asking what it would feel like if you were being run in that state. Here's another reductio ad absurdum: suppose the Simulation Argument is true, and we are in fact all Hash-Life Men right now. Suppose furthermore the Simulator flips a switch to turn off the Hash Life optimization and change the program to straight linear computation. Now we've gone from being 90-something% zombies to being fully conscious, surely a marvellous boost. Do we sing in rapturous joy as the wonder of full consciousness floods through our minds? But by hypothesis the output remains identical to what it would have been. Do we silently gibber in panic as our bodies go about their daily routine, oblivious to our attempts to cry out in joy followed by consternation? At this rate conscious rocks are starting to look downright sensible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Mar 26 21:04:59 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:04:59 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/26/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > Here's another reductio ad absurdum: suppose the Simulation Argument is > true, and we are in fact all Hash-Life Men right now. Suppose furthermore > the Simulator flips a switch to turn off the Hash Life optimization and > change the program to straight linear computation. Now we've gone from being > 90-something% zombies to being fully conscious, surely a marvellous boost. > Do we sing in rapturous joy as the wonder of full consciousness floods > through our minds? But by hypothesis the output remains identical to what it > would have been. Do we silently gibber in panic as our bodies go about their > daily routine, oblivious to our attempts to cry out in joy followed by > consternation? At this rate conscious rocks are starting to look downright > sensible. Or at some point we realize that the heavens do not circle the Earth, and we go outside and enjoy the experience anyway...and go on to imagine ways of breaking even further bonds of thought. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon Mar 26 23:25:18 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:25:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org><01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com><020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com><024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com><20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > as you [Eugen] say, the computation in between > will jump back and forth in a way that looks very > strange to our eyes. If the objections raised were > correct, that would make Hash-Life Man a mostly- > zombie - an entity even more implausible than a > total zombie, once you start asking what it would > feel like if you were being run in that state. This "asking" that you keep wanting us to do is rather strange. > Here's another reductio ad absurdum: suppose the > Simulation Argument is true, and we are in fact all > Hash-Life Men right now. Suppose furthermore the > Simulator flips a switch to turn off the Hash Life > optimization and change the program to straight > linear computation. Oh, good. More genuine runtime for me! > Now we've gone from being 90-something% zombies > to being fully conscious, surely a marvellous boost. > Do we sing in rapturous joy as the wonder of full > consciousness floods through our minds? Well, you know better than that! You should know that surely no one here is saying such a thing! I am merely asking whether some entity is having an experience; I start with the principle that for a man the answer is "Yes" and for rocks and space-dust the answer is "No". We also, presumably, agree that playing back a movie provides none of the characters any conscious experience. Neither Rick nor Humphrey Bogart is either saddened or exhilerated at all when reruns of Casablanca are shown. So how can you be so *sure* that in the lookup vs. causal computation process, the lookup process is not akin to simply playing back a perfect 3D movie? You must entertain the possibility that this is so, and that if you are enjoying your life then you will equally enjoy repeat computations, but won't enjoy or experience at all any repeat movies of your life. I am trying to solve a certain problem, so I'll put it to you, then. Suppose that there are infinitely many galaxies (so that numbers don't cramp my style here) and that there is an ordering G1, G2, G3, G4 ... such that between G1 and G2 lies a patch of dust spread out over many many lightyears that is manifestly Russell Wallace the way that he was on October 7, at 12:00:00.000000000 seconds. And that between G3 and G4 there is another unmistakable image of Russell, this time 1 billionth of a second past that same time. Suppose that this sequence G1, G2, G3, ... extends for the entire 5 minute interval of October 7 from 12:00:00.000000000 to 12:05:00.000000000. So the universe is exhibiting a succession of images of you over that five minute part of your life. Is there or is there not any experience taking place out there in that sequence of patterns? Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Mon Mar 26 23:53:48 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:53:48 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/26/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Here's another reductio ad absurdum: suppose the > > Simulation Argument is true, and we are in fact all > > Hash-Life Men right now. Suppose furthermore the > > Simulator flips a switch to turn off the Hash Life > > optimization and change the program to straight > > linear computation. > > Oh, good. More genuine runtime for me! Lee, knowing you as well as I (virtually) do, I would guess that better than runtime, and better even than genuine runtime, would be multiple instances of genuine runtime of your most enjoyable moment of life. ;-) - Jef From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Mar 26 23:58:53 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:58:53 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/26/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > (Note that this is very different from the Swamp Man scenario where > information is generated from random quantum fluctuations at an > improbability factor of two to the power of a zillion to one against. In > that scenario, it would be reasonable to call it non-causal.) > Do you say this because they are quantum fluctuations, or because of the extreme improbability that Swamp Man will emerge? There is a problem if you say quantum effects are non-causal because everything is ultimately a quantum event, which has a classical approximation at large scales. There is a problem if you say extremely improbable things that happen are non-causal because improbable things can happen and, given long enough, will happen. Boltzmann thought the whole universe was a kind of Swamp Man, a random low entropy variation. Stathis Papaioannou Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 00:28:21 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:28:21 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240703261728s524e476aq9a480b139b5dc3f9@mail.gmail.com> On 3/26/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Simulator flips a switch to turn off the Hash Life > > optimization and change the program to straight > > linear computation. > > Oh, good. More genuine runtime for me! I get the image of a LeeCorbin worm infecting every processing node in the universe and causing such an intense storm of internode communication that the entire simulation machine simply gets turned off and state is restored from backup. > any conscious experience. Neither Rick nor Humphrey > Bogart is either saddened or exhilerated at all when > reruns of Casablanca are shown. > > So how can you be so *sure* that in the lookup vs. > causal computation process, the lookup process is > not akin to simply playing back a perfect 3D movie? > You must entertain the possibility that this is so, and > that if you are enjoying your life then you will equally > enjoy repeat computations, but won't enjoy or > experience at all any repeat movies of your life. I think being completely sure of anything is impossible without also removing the part of the brain that logically measures "sure-ness" As absurd as that sounds, people seem inherently able to do this more frequently than they seem able to maintain logically constructed arguments. (this is a commentary on the current state of meat-bot computing) > to you, then. Suppose that there are infinitely many > galaxies (so that numbers don't cramp my style here) ... > And that between G3 and G4 there is another > unmistakable image of Russell, this time 1 billionth > of a second past that same time. ... > So the universe is exhibiting a succession of images > of you over that five minute part of your life. Is there > or is there not any experience taking place out there > in that sequence of patterns? Are you assuming some mundane arbitrarily large number of galaxies within a single space-time coordinate system (universe) ? given each spec occurs simultaneously within a given temporal moment, then it is a series of pictures you describe and the Casablanca/movie is analogous. I would agree that the computation of the universe at this moment has already been done, so the perspective of any spatial distance to each spec does not bring new experience (using your definition of computation-as-experiential life) If a change in resolution fires some kind of recalculation event to compute a higher degree of detail, then maybe there is some new experience to be gained. Once the lazy cache of image data is completely rendered across each region, the change in perspective is once again 'just' a table lookup (cache hit) without computation. If there is only one spatial coordinate system, but multiple time are used to record the state of each spec at G1, G2, etc. then we (observers) must be able to change our perspective outside the time dimension as easily as we changed spatial dimension above. I think this is more difficult to imagine since we seem to be bound to moving positively through time, but it's really not that much different after the initial dis-intuition wears off. I'm not sure the next step makes much sense talking about someone else's 'light cone' (for lack of a better term) So imagine we do possess the degree of freedom required to visit any space-time in our lives. The ghost of Christmas past is invoked to show us any moment of our life up to the moment it appears. Somehow our ghost-enabled self is able to observe the earlier state. Thoroughly searching our memory does not provide comparable detail because our brain's recording media was too slow and small to record everything in high definition - so the "lifelike" resolution proves that we are not merely recalling a memory, but observing a fully computed earlier moment of existence. Now observe all the way up to the moment the ghost enabled your enhanced observation. I suggest there is an unexpected limitation due to the recursion of ghost-enabled observation of ghost-enabled observation (the mirror in a mirror, or camera viewing the output monitor feedback) or God Over Djinni infinite stack overflow (from Godel, Escher Bach) Every time you solve this problem by allowing an extra dimension of freedom in which to change the observation point, you arbitrarily create a new context in which the original spec (G1) can be observed or related to. So in that respect, a new computation or experience is gained. BTW, is your reference universe granular such that there exists a smallest unit of space-time (analogous to the set of integers Z) or smooth (comparable to the set of Real numbers R) Are there universes modelled on the set of complex numbers? From jay.dugger at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 00:49:11 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:49:11 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] LINK: Audio of Vernor Vinge's "What if the Singularity Doesn't Happen?" Message-ID: <5366105b0703261749y58e349c5o8795a5ba45693f5f@mail.gmail.com> 19:48 Monday, 26 March 2007 Hello all, The audio for Vinge's recent talk at the Long Now Foundation finally appeared in my podcatcher. http://odeo.com/show/10397293/1022400/download/VernorVinge.mp3 I think the slides exist on-line, but I haven't a handy link. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 27 02:20:18 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:20:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703261156o5745afddm3ebc1dcd59fcb9ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <027f01c77016$77e9a220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Rafal writes > On 3/25/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >> >> > Moreover, at the next frame, which is computed, the subject would >> > suddenly remember perceiving the light and have no recollection that >> > anything unusual had happened. >> >> That's right. It takes us back to the by-now old observation that God >> could have created the universe 1 second ago, and we'd be none the >> wiser. > > ### I would disagree here. From what I know about physics of our world > you cannot predict the future of a physical system at an arbitrary > point in its trajectory without precisely tracing the whole > trajectory, or rather, the sheaf of possible trajectories of the > system over time. Yes, that's reasonable. But you are thereby outlawing an omnipotent deity, whereas I was just assuming that if Such existed, It would be able to create our present universe in its current state from scratch. Very well. > If all you know is the state S1 at time T1, you have > to recapitulate the whole multiverse in the light cone starting at T1 > with state S1, to describe the probability distribution of all states > at any time T2 after T1. Could a semi-omnipotent God go around to each point in the quantum fields which make up reality, and juggle the local group at random thereby putting into the universe the information? My point being that if such is conceivable, then by incredibly remote chance---or He is incredibly lucky---He could have come up come up with this moment's arrangement without doing any other calculation. > The same applies to the consciousness simulated on a GLUT - lookup of > the state of a physical system *is* a calculation of that state. It is > computationally impossible to "compute" only select "frames", you > must run the whole film. Well, we can argue about the GLUT lookup method later. Since I sense that several of us here may not be quite really understanding each other, you would allow, I assume, that simply *loading* each frame out of memory into some predesignated register---so that the appearance of computation arises---still no actual computation comes about, and we could arrange any order we wished for the sequences of frames or states to display? > The same pertains to a non-periodic CA - you really have to run > the whole calculation from state #1 to state #1000 to actually see > state #1000. Yes, unless you loaded frames from an earlier run, or you got incredibly lucky in the specification of an initial state. (The present state of our universe is, of course, incredibly non-random, containing as it does immeasurable redundancy and structure.) Lee > So, no time-sovereign god and no zombies are possible. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 27 02:49:40 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:40 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240703261728s524e476aq9a480b139b5dc3f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <028801c7701a$adf71420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes >> So how can you be so *sure* that in the lookup vs. >> causal computation process, the lookup process is >> not akin to simply playing back a perfect 3D movie? >> You must entertain the possibility that this is so, and >> that if you are enjoying your life then you will equally >> enjoy repeat computations, but won't enjoy or >> experience at all any repeat movies of your life. > > I think being completely sure of anything is impossible without also > removing the part of the brain that logically measures "sure-ness" Yes, it was probably unfair of me to Russell to word it like that. >> to you, then. Suppose that there are infinitely many >> galaxies (so that numbers don't cramp my style here) > ... >> And that between G3 and G4 there is another >> unmistakable image of Russell, this time 1 billionth >> of a second past that same time. > ... >> So the universe is exhibiting a succession of images >> of you over that five minute part of your life. Is there >> or is there not any experience taking place out there >> in that sequence of patterns? > > Are you assuming some mundane arbitrarily large number of galaxies > within a single space-time coordinate system (universe) ? Yes, I meant to convey an actual aleph-zero collection of galaxies. (Tegmark postulated such a model, and I gather that a number of people had before him entertained the idea that the universe is spatially infinite.) So, yes, by my lights that includes a coordinate system that is capable in principle of referencing any galaxy, or (see below) any real-valued point among them. > given each spec occurs simultaneously within a given temporal moment, > then it is a series of pictures you describe and the Casablanca/movie > is analogous. I would agree that the computation of the universe at > this moment has already been done, so the perspective of any spatial > distance to each spec does not bring new experience (using your > definition of computation-as-experiential life) We agree, but I'm not sure how heavily you're leaning on "perspective". I meant to respond to an earlier post that seemed to be implying that that which is not observed by someone does not exist. Most of us, however, endorse realist models in which our language can *refer* to objects or structure that is independent of us, and which existed prior to our perception of it, and even prior to our own existence. > If there is only one spatial coordinate system, but multiple times are > used to record the state of each spec at G1, G2, etc. then we > (observers) must be able to change our perspective outside the time > dimension as easily as we changed spatial dimension above. I think > this is more difficult to imagine since we seem to be bound to moving > positively through time, but it's really not that much different after > the initial dis-intuition wears off. I don't know what you mean by this. But perhaps what you write next explains it: > So imagine we do possess the degree of freedom required to visit any > space-time in our lives. The ghost of Christmas past is invoked to > show us any moment of our life up to the moment it appears. Arthur C. Clarke mentioned such a history machine in "Childhood's End", and then he and Baxter wrote "The Light of Other Days" to enlarge on the theme. > Somehow our ghost-enabled self is able to observe the earlier state. > Thoroughly searching our memory does not provide comparable detail > because our brain's recording media was too slow and small to record > everything in high definition - so the "lifelike" resolution proves > that we are not merely recalling a memory, but observing a fully > computed earlier moment of existence. Yes. This is observation. > Now observe all the way up to the moment the ghost enabled your > enhanced observation. I suggest there is an unexpected limitation due > to the recursion of ghost-enabled observation of ghost-enabled > observation (the mirror in a mirror, or camera viewing the output > monitor feedback) or God Over Djinni infinite stack overflow (from > Godel, Escher Bach) I think I see your meaning: it would be possible with such machinery to exhibit any moment in the *past*, but moving around information instantaneously entirely in the present seems very problematic. To exhibit your current moment to you, the GOD would have to have already known it before your present moment was computed. > Every time you solve this problem by allowing an extra dimension of > freedom in which to change the observation point, you arbitrarily > create a new context in which the original spec (G1) can be observed > or related to. So in that respect, a new computation or experience is > gained. Well, yes, a new *observer* experience is created. I could go out and begin looking at my car from a number of different angles, and as I do so, I gain a new experience. Although frankly with my car, once you've seen it from one direction, you've seen it from all. The model which we were thinking about, however, did not contain ---I think it's proper to say---an observer. We were discussing a computation of a subject, that is, of an entity, and that being need not have any sense experience to confuse the issue. Then the next step was to load a sequence of such states into storage so that a "movie" could be re-run, or load them into a look-up table using for the address a perfect hash function of the state. > BTW, is your reference universe granular such that there exists a > smallest unit of space-time (analogous to the set of integers Z) or > smooth (comparable to the set of Real numbers R) Are there universes > modelled on the set of complex numbers? I think our universe is modeled on complex numbers! At least in quantum field theory :-) But I was assuming an event at each point of a real-valued spacetime. I wasn't thinking of a cellular or granular universe, although I think that the same arguments probably apply. >> > Simulator flips a switch to turn off the Hash Life >> > optimization and change the program to straight >> > linear computation. >> >> Oh, good. More genuine runtime for me! > > I get the image of a LeeCorbin worm infecting every processing node > in the universe and causing such an intense storm of internode > communication that the entire simulation machine simply gets turned > off and state is restored from backup. This is why, I suppose, it's best to try to be a bit moderate in all things! But me being so generous, you yourself can count on being emulated within whatever computational space I get my hands on. And since I'm so nice, I'm sure you'll do me the return favor and run me now and then in yours! As might be happening to me right now.............hmm, pretty good, thanks. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 03:39:24 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:39:24 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <024001c76fc9$0ccf2480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321105734.GR1512@leitl.org> <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <024001c76fc9$0ccf2480$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > (that's a standard English word with the same meaning as "qualia") as > his > > neurons or squares are being replaced, so that gradual zombification is > > impossible. This is because you can't have a half-zombie state where, > for > > example, half your neurons are replaced and although the whole person > > says "yes, I can see the light" for the benefit of external observers, > internally > > you are thinking "I can't see the light".... > > I agree that you cannot be having different internal thoughts. Yes indeed, > this > would mean that a bizarre state had been reached by the subject's brain. > Since we are just rehearsing previous deterministic runs, that would, yes, > be quite impossible. > > As you write > > > your consciousness would have to magically drift off in a different > direction, > > decoupled from the physical activity presumed to be underpinning it. And > if > > gradual zombification by gradual replacement cannot happen, then sudden > > total zombification when the last neuron or last square is replaced also > cannot > > happen, for it is absurd to think that your entire consciousness could > be > > sustained by one neuron or one square. > > Well, the zombification that I am talking about works quite differently. > Suppose for a moment that I am right about states having to be > causally connected in order for there to be information flow, and > in order for there to be an internal experiencer. Then it would follow > that a sequence of looked up states could not be conscious. Then > one would have a classic zombie. Yes, I am supposing for the sake of argument that the completely looked up states are 100% zombies. At the other end we have the completely computed states which are 100% conscious (or whatever your favourite term for this is - I think we all know what I'm referring to). In between, we have a possible spectrum of partly computed states, ranging from (1 square looked up, the rest computed) to (50% squares looked up, 50% computed) to (1 square computed, the rest looked up). You've agreed that these intermediate cases won't have intermediate levels of consciousness, hence they must all be either fully conscious or fully zombies. But that would then mean that the changing of a single square (or a single neuron, if we're trying to disprove the zombies-ate-my-brain objection to cyborgisation) at either end of the spectrum will result in sudden complete unconsciousness or sudden complete consciousness, which seems absurd. The only position left standing - the least absurd position, if you like - is that the looked up Life game is just as conscious as the computed Life game, and the electronic brain is just as conscious as the equivalent biological brain. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 03:47:32 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:47:32 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Well, you know better than that! You should know that > surely no one here is saying such a thing! Indeed, that's why I hoped it would be acknowledged as a successful disproof by reductio ad absurdum :) I am merely asking whether some entity is having an > experience; I start with the principle that for a man the > answer is "Yes" and for rocks and space-dust the > answer is "No". We also, presumably, agree that > playing back a movie provides none of the characters > any conscious experience. Neither Rick nor Humphrey > Bogart is either saddened or exhilerated at all when > reruns of Casablanca are shown. Yes, but be careful about letting your intuition jump to conclusions from that - the recording of Casablanca doesn't contain the information about internal brain states that would be required to produce conscious experience, irrespective of how the playback was done. So how can you be so *sure* that in the lookup vs. > causal computation process, the lookup process is > not akin to simply playing back a perfect 3D movie? > You must entertain the possibility that this is so, and > that if you are enjoying your life then you will equally > enjoy repeat computations, but won't enjoy or > experience at all any repeat movies of your life. Be careful of the word "perfect"; I think your intuition is trying to bundle an awfully big jump into it. Also be careful of the word "sure" and the phrase "entertain the possibility". There's a sense in which I can't be sure that solipsism isn't correct, in that I can't disprove it. I still don't entertain the possibility; I simply discard it as manifestly useless. I am trying to solve a certain problem, so I'll put it > to you, then. Suppose that there are infinitely many > galaxies (so that numbers don't cramp my style here) > and that there is an ordering G1, G2, G3, G4 ... > such that between G1 and G2 lies a patch of dust > spread out over many many lightyears that is > manifestly Russell Wallace the way that he was > on October 7, at 12:00:00.000000000 seconds. > And that between G3 and G4 there is another > unmistakable image of Russell, this time 1 billionth > of a second past that same time. > > Suppose that this sequence G1, G2, G3, ... extends > for the entire 5 minute interval of October 7 from > 12:00:00.000000000 to 12:05:00.000000000. > So the universe is exhibiting a succession of images > of you over that five minute part of your life. Is there > or is there not any experience taking place out there > in that sequence of patterns? > Okay. I'll add two more assumptions (both of which will be met somewhere - indeed infinitely often - in an infinite universe), making them explicit to make sure our intuitions aren't smuggling anything past customs without declaring it: - The "unmistakable images" aren't just superficial resemblance of external shape, but contain complete models of internal brain state, in a form that could be decoded without special knowledge. - They're lined up in a nice neat row so that the information about me doesn't have to be contained in the choice of coordinates of the dust patches. At this point, believe it or not, the word we have to start being careful of is "is"! Normally it doesn't cause any problems because we have approximately the same arrow of time (the big exception being if one observer jumps into a black hole while another watches from a safe distance - apparently their arrows of time are sufficiently different as to produce disagreement about the result). In this case, though, the arrows of time are incommensurable. Suppose the dust patches - or hard disks containing snapshots of an upload's runtime, or glass blocks containing frames of Life Man's runtime or whatever - are laid out along the X axis in your chosen coordinate system. In this scenario, my time coordinate is at right angles to yours, your X is my T. So in my time, I am indeed having an experience. In your time, only you are having an experience, because I'm not living in your time. Yes this is counterintuitive, but that's only to be expected when we consider situations very different from those in which our intuition was evolved and trained. I see two ways to understand this result - maybe there are more, but the two I see are: - The Platonist view in which the Tegmark multiverse is considered to exist. Then there is (in a timeless/mathematical sense of the word "is") a region of the multiverse in which I am having that particular five minutes of experience, and this will always be true irrespective of whether you have in front of you a representation of those five minutes. - The Popperian view in which we are not interested in metaphysics, but focus on theories that are falsifiable. The original question as posed is not falsifiable, therefore not interesting. To make it so, we must find a way to test it. The obvious way to test whether an entity is conscious is to have a conversation with it. To do that, the arrows of time have to be aligned - you can't have a conversation with someone who isn't living in the same time dimension as you! In this thought experiment, to have a conversation with me you would have to take one of the snapshots, copy it into a computer and start running it - in your time axis. At that point you could quickly satisfy yourself that I was conscious - as expected. Does this help? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 03:51:33 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:51:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703262051n7ccb8e86t58e916c020698cc9@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Do you say this because they are quantum fluctuations, or because of the > extreme improbability that Swamp Man will emerge? There is a problem if you > say quantum effects are non-causal because everything is ultimately a > quantum event, which has a classical approximation at large scales. There is > a problem if you say extremely improbable things that happen are non-causal > because improbable things can happen and, given long enough, will happen. > Boltzmann thought the whole universe was a kind of Swamp Man, a random low > entropy variation. > In that context I was focusing on the difference between theories about Hash-Life Man which are falsifiable at least in principle, and theories about Swamp Man which are not. I don't personally think it matters as far as consciousness is concerned - we could imagine that our universe is a kind of Swamp Man (with the interesting corrolary from the reversibility of physical law that time was almost certainly running backwards until just now), though Boltzmann's view falls over once we consider that it would have been much cheaper to generate, say, just our solar system that way rather than the whole universe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 03:52:33 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:52:33 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703262052y10d971c5y4d2597e5974b671f@mail.gmail.com> On 3/26/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Or at some point we realize that the heavens do not circle the Earth, > and we go outside and enjoy the experience anyway...and go on to > imagine ways of breaking even further bonds of thought. Yes indeed ^.^ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 27 05:10:29 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:10:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations Message-ID: <55912.76982.qm@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Lee wrote: >I think I see your meaning: it would be possible with >such machinery to exhibit any moment in the *past*, >but moving around information instantaneously >entirely in the present seems very problematic. To >exhibit your current moment to you, the GOD would >have to have already known it before your present >moment was computed. I can see how threw reading history it could be possible to imagine machinery to exhibit any moment in the past, I could see how in philosophy, the probability that moving around information instantaneously may seem problematic, and based on my beliefs, "God does have to have already known it before your present moment was computed". >The model which we were thinking about, however, did >not contain ---I think it's proper to say---an >observer. We were discussing a computation of a >subject, that is, of an entity, and that being need >not have any sense experience to confuse the issue. >Then the next step was to load a sequence of such >states into storage so that a "movie" could be re->run, or load them into a look-up table using for the >address a perfect hash function of the state. Would that mean either the movie is being re-run or it is being written at new? What makes for a really block buster movie, a re-run or a newly written script? Even if you load it into a table, you won't know what to pick out. What will be the best run of a database program? A13+D42 or A1 + B1 or A1+ (T1+D42) + {(T2-T1)(A13..ect..) It's not about how many words/numbers you have in a database, it's how you correlate the database, what questions you ask of it based on what answers you expect/want from it. Thanks Lee, always a pleasure, you always come back with something out there and creative. Anna:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Tue Mar 27 07:33:30 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:33:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals Message-ID: I wonder what the the anti-aging scientists can learn from the Bowhead whales? I don't buy the 'stress' argument, given below; it should shorten the ages, instead. There must be another key to their long life. ----------------- Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals http://www.alaskareport.com/science10065.htm Bada found that most of the adult whales were between 20 and 60 years old when they died, but five males were much older. One was 91, one was 135, one 159, one 172, and the oldest whale was 211 years old at the time of its death. That whale, alive during the term of President Clinton, was also gliding slowly and gracefully through the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort seas when Thomas Jefferson was president. Bada explained that the method of measuring changes in aspartic acid to determine age has an accuracy range of about 16 percent, which means the 211 year-old bowhead could have been from 177 to 245 years old. The oldest known ages for mammals are 110 years for a blue whale and 114 years for a fin whale, based on a Japanese scientist's counting of waxy laminates on the inner ear plug of the whales, a method that does not work for bowheads. The oldest living person with a birth certificate was a 122-year-old woman from France who died in 1997. Elephants have lived to 70 in captivity, so bowheads may be the oldest mammals that exist. Why do bowhead whales live so long? George speculated that the bowhead's tough environment-cold water without abundant food available-forces it to maintain a great body mass, an effective system for fat storage and an efficient mechanism to keep warm. The stress of living in arctic waters may nurture the whale's pattern of slow growth and long life. "They just take longer to do what mammals do farther south," said Craig, who added that he has taken a bowhead's approach to higher education as he pursues a Ph.D. through the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "Like me-I'm closing in on 50 and I'm still in graduate school" ----------------- -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 09:00:20 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:00:20 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Amara Graps wrote: > > I wonder what the the anti-aging scientists can learn from the Bowhead > whales? I don't buy the 'stress' argument, given below; it should > shorten the ages, instead. There must be another key to their long life. > > ----------------- > > Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals [snip] Amara, this has been known for some time among aging biologists. Indeed, the URL cited seems to be for a reprint from Feb 2001 [1]. There is currently in preparation a proposal to NHGRI to sequence the genomes of a number of longevity "outliers" including the Bowhead Whale. The stress argument only has limited merit. There are multiple paths genomes may take towards redundancy, for example in several species of sturgeon (which can live to over 100 years), it seems to be due to polyploidy (or perhaps of other forms of 'genomic redundancy'). In whales, as in elephants, they are very large compared to humans, therefore they have many more cells, so they have probably developed better strategies to prevent cancer (or minimize metastasis). In which case, one could argue that they live longer due to there inherent cellular redundancy (more cells are better if they don't lead to increased cancer probabilities). Longevity evolves along various vectors given the minimization of the external hazard function which seems associated with in a shift from R-selection to K-selection. The 3 species traits which seem to contribute highly to this are (1) intelligence; (2) size; and (3) superior defenses, esp. shells. If you push on those vectors, longevity, and in turn the genomic programs which provide that, tend to follow. Robert 1. The initial scientific studies may date to 1999 or earlier. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 27 09:31:25 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:31:25 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070327093125.GF1512@leitl.org> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:17:36PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > By appropriate choice of target state. For conversation, you only need > a readout every X clock cycles, for a value of X that depends on the > implementation details but will in any case be significantly greater > than 1; and as you say, the computation in between will jump back and I didn't have time to look into what happens in Hash Life in more detail. For one the entire spacetime trajectory is contained in the hash, encoded. For other, assembling a full trajectory frame and especially subsequent trajectory frames is where the experience occurs. As I said, I don't have time to think, so these are just opinions devoid of fact . > forth in a way that looks very strange to our eyes. If the objections > raised were correct, that would make Hash-Life Man a mostly-zombie - > an entity even more implausible than a total zombie, once you start > asking what it would feel like if you were being run in that state. > Here's another reductio ad absurdum: suppose the Simulation Argument > is true, and we are in fact all Hash-Life Men right now. Suppose > furthermore the Simulator flips a switch to turn off the Hash Life > optimization and change the program to straight linear computation. > Now we've gone from being 90-something% zombies to being fully > conscious, surely a marvellous boost. Do we sing in rapturous joy as > the wonder of full consciousness floods through our minds? But by > hypothesis the output remains identical to what it would have been. Do > we silently gibber in panic as our bodies go about their daily > routine, oblivious to our attempts to cry out in joy followed by > consternation? At this rate conscious rocks are starting to look > downright sensible. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From amaraa at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 09:42:24 2007 From: amaraa at gmail.com (Amara Angelica) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:42:24 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] LINK: Audio of Vernor Vinge's "What if the Singularity Doesn't Happen?" In-Reply-To: <5366105b0703261749y58e349c5o8795a5ba45693f5f@mail.gmail.com> References: <5366105b0703261749y58e349c5o8795a5ba45693f5f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9441abee0703270242m50449ed3r727d796aa0bfc5f7@mail.gmail.com> http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0696.html has audio, slides, and text of his talk. On 3/26/07, Jay Dugger wrote: > > 19:48 Monday, 26 March 2007 > > Hello all, > > The audio for Vinge's recent talk at the Long Now Foundation finally > appeared in my podcatcher. > > http://odeo.com/show/10397293/1022400/download/VernorVinge.mp3 > > I think the slides exist on-line, but I haven't a handy link. > > -- > Jay Dugger > http://jaydugger.suprglu.com > Sometimes the delete key serves best. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 11:19:55 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:19:55 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Jef Allbright wrote: "...a stream of consciousness survives fragmentation of the process..." > > [What is this stream of consciousness that can be conceived > independently of the process?] Maybe it can't. A haircut is dependent on the barber and the scissors, insofar as no barber and scissors means no haircut. But we can still talk of "a haircut". "...consciousness supervenes on the instantaneous computational state..." > > [ditto...] Supervenience means you can't have one without the other. It is a rather clumsy term. "...you can take the snapshots and run the computation a second time > out of sequence, e.g. running the first minute last and the last > minute first. Would the inhabitants of the simulation notice that > something unusual had happened?" > > [From what point of view would one observe this? This seems like > those science fiction stories where "time is warped", and the more > sensitive individuals say "did you feel that?"] Well, that's exactly what I'm getting at! From the inside, it would be impossible to notice anything. "Suppose for a moment that I am right about states having to be > causally connected in order for there to be information flow, and > in order for there to be an internal experiencer." > > [I understand describing a system having experience, but having "an > internal experiencer"?] Yes, it's redundant, like "conscious experience" is redundant. Usually Lee is very precise and economic with language, but this consciousness business seems to cause no end of confusion in the terminology alone. I enjoy precise thought and there's a good amount of that going on > here, but some of it is precise in the way of Copernicus describing > the apparent motion of celestial bodies. Elaborate epicycles > constructed to preserve the assumption of a privileged reference > point. Do you mean Ptolemy? Copernicus was the good guy. It's not about whether or not qualia exist, but about whether the > concept adds anything of value. What about experiences? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 11:32:50 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:32:50 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Russell Wallace wrote: To have a conversation with Rock Man, you would have to build a "decoding > device" that actually contains all the information in Rock Man's mind. It is > then obvious to any reasonable person that Rock Man's consciousness resides > in the "decoding device", not in the rock. > The decoding device allows an external observer to communicate with Rock Man. But what test of consciousness do you use in the case of inputless machines, dreaming away on their own? For example, if you found an alien computer which was a self-contained inputless AI, but its designers and design specifications were all long vanished, would it be any less conscious because you couldn't talk to it? If it had I/O devices no matter how obscure its design with assiduous testing you could eventually determine what it was up to, but you would have no chance without this. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 27 11:45:45 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:45:45 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070327114545.GM1512@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 09:32:50PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The decoding device allows an external observer to communicate with > Rock Man. But what test of consciousness do you use in the case of > inputless machines, dreaming away on their own? For example, if you How this is different from our physical reality? You can make measurements on reality. You can make measurements on the computer. > found an alien computer which was a self-contained inputless AI, but > its designers and design specifications were all long vanished, would > it be any less conscious because you couldn't talk to it? If it had How would you know it's a self-contained inputless AI and not just a room heater? > I/O devices no matter how obscure its design with assiduous testing Computers build in this physical reality can't be obscure, if they want to be efficient. > you could eventually determine what it was up to, but you would have > no chance without this. So you would put a logic analyzer to work on a rock? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 12:03:04 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:03:04 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <20070327114545.GM1512@leitl.org> References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070327114545.GM1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > found an alien computer which was a self-contained inputless AI, but > > its designers and design specifications were all long vanished, would > > it be any less conscious because you couldn't talk to it? If it had > > How would you know it's a self-contained inputless AI and not > just a room heater? That's right, you wouldn't. But it would go ahead computing or just heating the room whether you knew it or not. Or do you disagree? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 12:03:49 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:03:49 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Jef Allbright wrote: To amplify Russell's remarks somewhat, there's an assumption running > through this thread that there can be "information" without an > observer, thus the talk about "information flowing" during a "causal > process", but not in the case of a lookup table. There's an essential > subjective element that's being ignored here. Just as any pattern of > bits may be validly said to "be random" or to "contain information", > it depends on the observer. Without specifying the observer, the > statement is meaningless. Indeed. But it gets weird when the observer is himself the product of the information, bootstrapping itself into a self-awareness. Noise can be seen to contain any information you want, if you look at it the right way. A page covered in ink contains any given English sentence, but in a trivial or meaningless sense unless some external observer already knows the sentence he is looking for. However, what if a particular English sentence had the property of being self-aware, in the absence of any external observer? In that case, this unusual sentence would indeed be lurking, self-aware but perfectly hidden, in the ink-covered page. Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, then self-aware computations must be lurking all around us in noise, perhaps in elaborate virtual worlds, but never able to interact in any way with the substrate of their implementation. The only way to avoid this strange idea is to say that computations can't be self-aware. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 27 12:20:10 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:20:10 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070327114545.GM1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070327122010.GN1512@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:03:04PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > That's right, you wouldn't. But it would go ahead computing or just > heating the room whether you knew it or not. Or do you disagree? Am I correct to assume that you mean both room heaters and rocks create observers and worlds? Is there any physical system which doesn't do that? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 12:20:31 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:20:31 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, then self-aware computations > must be lurking all around us in noise, perhaps in elaborate virtual worlds, > but never able to interact in any way with the substrate of their > implementation. The only way to avoid this strange idea is to say that > computations can't be self-aware. > Well as I said I think there are two approaches to this idea, the Platonist one which embraces it in terms of the Tegmark multiverse, and the Popperian one which bypasses it as irrelevant where there isn't any way to interact with the purported entities. Nor do these contradict each other; it's perfectly possible to be a Platonist when wearing a philosopher's hat, and a Popperian for purposes of making actual decisions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 12:29:17 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:29:17 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703270529w1a3222efm2192593b624360a0@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, then self-aware computations > must be lurking all around us in noise, perhaps in elaborate virtual worlds, > but never able to interact in any way with the substrate of their > implementation. The only way to avoid this strange idea is to say that > computations can't be self-aware. > Though even from the Platonist viewpoint, it is still wrong to say that a rock contains self-aware computation. You can say that some subset of the Tegmark multiverse contains self-aware computation, and you can say that there exists a mapping from the rock to this subset. But any information in the rock + mapping is contained in the mapping, not the rock. The rock is a red herring. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 27 12:29:39 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:29:39 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070327122939.GO1512@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:03:49PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Indeed. But it gets weird when the observer is himself the product of > the information, bootstrapping itself into a self-awareness. Noise can > be seen to contain any information you want, if you look at it the No, because you can't sample the machine phase space by noise. You'd do much better with an enumerator, but these don't scale beyond a handful of bits. > right way. A page covered in ink contains any given English sentence, > but in a trivial or meaningless sense unless some external observer > already knows the sentence he is looking for. However, what if a > particular English sentence had the property of being self-aware, in > the absence of any external observer? In that case, this unusual > sentence would indeed be lurking, self-aware but perfectly hidden, in > the ink-covered page. Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, > then self-aware computations must be lurking all around us in noise, You still hasn't told us what a Hash Life observer + universe perceives. It's a very straightforward system. Surely, it can't be hard figuring out what it feels? > perhaps in elaborate virtual worlds, but never able to interact in any > way with the substrate of their implementation. The only way to avoid > this strange idea is to say that computations can't be self-aware. No, the reasonable person assumes computation is reserved to a small subset of all physical systems, specifically, to evolutionary designed systems and their derivates (computers). -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 13:38:39 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:38:39 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 3/27/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, then self-aware > > computations must be lurking all around us in noise, perhaps in elaborate > > virtual worlds, but never able to interact in any way with the substrate of > > their implementation. The only way to avoid this strange idea is to say that > > computations can't be self-aware. > > > > Well as I said I think there are two approaches to this idea, the > Platonist one which embraces it in terms of the Tegmark multiverse, and the > Popperian one which bypasses it as irrelevant where there isn't any way to > interact with the purported entities. Nor do these contradict each other; > it's perfectly possible to be a Platonist when wearing a philosopher's hat, > and a Popperian for purposes of making actual decisions. > That summarises it very well. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 13:55:13 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:55:13 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <028801c7701a$adf71420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240703261728s524e476aq9a480b139b5dc3f9@mail.gmail.com> <028801c7701a$adf71420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240703270655u73bc9602s7272be638b4c2dc@mail.gmail.com> On 3/26/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > I think our universe is modeled on complex numbers! At least > in quantum field theory :-) But I was assuming an event at > each point of a real-valued spacetime. I wasn't thinking of a > cellular or granular universe, although I think that the same > arguments probably apply. complex numbers immediately make me think of fractals. If you consider the computation of Mandelbrot and Julia sets, they're iterative functions. As such, a given point is calculated until a "good-enough" approximation is determined. If this is analogous, then perhaps further calculation is immaterial because the emerging detail asymptotically approach a limit that can be computed without iteration. Also consider periodicity in an iterative function. There may still be computation, but unless there is some external counter of history, there would be no way to determine if a cycle exists. The system would continue runtime calculations, yet no "new" points are graphed. (external history might include an extra dimension to track iteration number at each point, so a given point may exist at multiple iteration counts) Is our form of consciousness a particularly strong attractor from which we are unable to escape? From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 27 13:59:18 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:59:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis wrote > Yes, I am supposing for the sake of argument that the completely looked up states are 100% zombies. At the other end we have the > completely computed states which are 100% conscious (or whatever your favourite term for this is - I think we all know what I'm > referring to). In between, we have a possible spectrum of partly computed states, ranging from (1 square looked up, the rest > computed) to (50% squares looked up, 50% computed) to (1 square computed, the rest looked up). < Yes. > You've agreed that these intermediate cases won't have intermediate levels of > consciousness, hence they must all be either fully conscious or fully zombies. I'm sorry, there has been some miscommunication. I have agreed that (of course!) no aberrant thoughts would occur---that is, no new brain states. Now since you've admitted (at least the two of us agree!) that one might be 100% zombie at time t1, and 100% truly-having-experiences at time t2, then you admit that these periods could change back and forth with exceeding rapidity. That is, you might be a zombie for a thousandth of a second, and conscious the next thousandth. I'm really saying no more than this. It amounts---when averaged out---to being only fractionally "there" during some larger period of time. If taken to the limit, then this particular 50/50 example would mean to me that one state would be computed, then the next looked up, then the next computed and so on. Just as "being a zombie for 1 hour" and then "being completely conscious for 1 hour" can alternate meaningfully, then so can each, what?, billionth of a second. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 27 14:10:11 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:10:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02b701c77079$f6053a80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > > I am merely asking whether some entity is having an > > experience; I start with the principle that for a man the > > answer is "Yes" and for rocks and space-dust the > > answer is "No". We also, presumably, agree that > > playing back a movie provides none of the characters > > any conscious experience. Neither Rick nor Humphrey > > Bogart is either saddened or exhilerated at all when > > reruns of Casablanca are shown. > > Yes, but be careful about letting your intuition jump to > conclusions from that - the recording of Casablanca > doesn't contain the information about internal brain states > that would be required to produce conscious experience, > irrespective of how the playback was done. Oh, yes, but clearly that information could be added to make a super movie. Merely visually, for example, certain screens full of 1's and 0's might fully capture either the character's or the actor's frame of mind, or state of brain. > > I am trying to solve a certain problem, so I'll put it > > to you, then. Suppose that there are infinitely many > > galaxies (so that numbers don't cramp my style here) > > and that there is an ordering G1, G2, G3, G4 ... > > such that between G1 and G2 lies a patch of dust > > spread out over many many lightyears that is > > manifestly Russell Wallace the way that he was > > on October 7, at 12:00:00.000000000 seconds. > > And that between G3 and G4 there is another > > unmistakable image of Russell, this time 1 billionth > > of a second past that same time. > > > > Suppose that this sequence G1, G2, G3, ... extends > > for the entire 5 minute interval of October 7 from > > 12:00:00.000000000 to 12:05:00.000000000. > > So the universe is exhibiting a succession of images > > of you over that five minute part of your life. Is there > > or is there not any experience taking place out there > > in that sequence of patterns? > > Okay. I'll add two more assumptions (both of which will > be met somewhere - indeed infinitely often - in an infinite > universe), making them explicit to make sure our intuitions > aren't smuggling anything past customs without declaring it: > > - The "unmistakable images" aren't just superficial resemblance > of external shape, but contain complete models of internal > brain state, in a form that could be decoded without special > knowledge. Yes, fine. > - They're lined up in a nice neat row so that the information > about me doesn't have to be contained in the choice of > coordinates of the dust patches. Well :-) arguing about that ought to be a later step! As for now, yes, they're lined up in neat rows. Unfortunately this is highly improbable, whereas in our real universe, dust patches between adjacent pairs of infinitely many galaxies almost certainly exist that exhibit your pattern. > Suppose the dust patches - or hard disks containing snapshots > of an upload's runtime, or glass blocks containing frames of > Life Man's runtime or whatever - are laid out along the X axis > in your chosen coordinate system. > > In this scenario, my time coordinate is at right angles to yours, > your X is my T. So in my time, I am indeed having an experience. > In your time, only you are having an experience, because I'm not > living in your time. This equating of a time dimension and space dimensions I have never agreed with, by the way. But the exercise has served its purpose. It exposed a fundamental disagreement. (For me, the linearly layed out states (which could be trillions of light years away from each other) don't exhibit what is crucial to consciousness or experience: information flow, causality. Yes, Russell, this has helped. Thanks. Lee > - The Platonist view in which the Tegmark multiverse is considered to exist. Then there is (in a timeless/mathematical sense of > the word "is") a region of the multiverse in which I am having that particular five minutes of experience, and this will always be > true irrespective of whether you have in front of you a representation of those five minutes. > - The Popperian view in which we are not interested in metaphysics, but focus on theories that are falsifiable. The original > question as posed is not falsifiable, therefore not interesting. To make it so, we must find a way to test it. The obvious way to > test whether an entity is conscious is to have a conversation with it. To do that, the arrows of time have to be aligned - you > can't have a conversation with someone who isn't living in the same time dimension as you! In this thought experiment, to have a > conversation with me you would have to take one of the snapshots, copy it into a computer and start running it - in your time > axis. At that point you could quickly satisfy yourself that I was conscious - as expected. > Does this help? From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 27 14:16:50 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:16:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <55912.76982.qm@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02bf01c7707a$ab3cad70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Anna writes > I can see how through reading history it could be > possible to imagine machinery to exhibit any moment in > the past, I could see how in philosophy, the > probability that moving around information > instantaneously may seem problematic, and based on my > beliefs, "God does have to have already known it > before your present moment was computed". > >> The model which we were thinking about, however, did >> not contain ---I think it's proper to say---an >> observer. We were discussing a computation of a >> subject, that is, of an entity, and that being need >> not have any sense experience to confuse the issue. > >> Then the next step was to load a sequence of such >> states into storage so that a "movie" could be >> re-run, or load them into a look-up table using for >> the address a perfect hash function of the state. > > Would that mean either the movie is being re-run or it > is being written at new? This is a re-run. > What makes for a really block buster movie, a re-run or a newly written script? :-) > Even if you load it into a table, you won't know what > to pick out. What will be the best run of a database > program? A13+D42 or A1 + B1 or A1+ (T1+D42) + > {(T2-T1)(A13..ect..) Yes, right. I confess that it is "obvious" to me that the mere re-running of a movie, no matter how fantastically detailed, cannot possibly qualify as process with which we should have any sympathy, or attribute to it any real internal experience. Ultimately it can come down to a moral question, since what we are ultimately after is what actions we should take. And I consider movies expendable, at least when compared to the real lives of real people. Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 14:24:18 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:24:18 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <02b701c77079$f6053a80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com> <02b701c77079$f6053a80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703270724t574ed179pb096331f56d76a90@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > This equating of a time dimension and space dimensions I have > never agreed with, by the way. But the exercise has served its > purpose. It exposed a fundamental disagreement. (For me, > the linearly layed out states (which could be trillions of light > years away from each other) don't exhibit what is crucial to > consciousness or experience: information flow, causality. > > Yes, Russell, this has helped. Thanks. No problem! Sometimes progress is in figuring out the exact point of disagreement. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Mar 27 14:06:02 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:06:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 3/27/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > "...a stream of consciousness survives fragmentation of the process..." > > > > [What is this stream of consciousness that can be conceived > > independently of the process?] > > Maybe it can't. A haircut is dependent on the barber and the scissors, > insofar as no barber and scissors means no haircut. But we can still talk of > "a haircut". "Oh, I really like your haircut. May I have it?" > > "...consciousness supervenes on the instantaneous computational state..." > > > > [ditto...] > > Supervenience means you can't have one without the other. It is a rather > clumsy term. > > > "...you can take the snapshots and run the computation a second time > > out of sequence, e.g. running the first minute last and the last > > minute first. Would the inhabitants of the simulation notice that > > something unusual had happened?" > > > > [From what point of view would one observe this? This seems like > > those science fiction stories where "time is warped", and the more > > sensitive individuals say "did you feel that?"] > > > Well, that's exactly what I'm getting at! From the inside, it would be > impossible to notice anything. It seems that you repeatedly approach and test that understanding, but don't accept it. Maybe you do buy it, but have other motivations for continuing to kick the tires? > > "Suppose for a moment that I am right about states having to be > > causally connected in order for there to be information flow, and > > in order for there to be an internal experiencer." > > > > [I understand describing a system having experience, but having "an > > internal experiencer"?] > > Yes, it's redundant, like "conscious experience" is redundant. Usually Lee > is very precise and economic with language, but this consciousness business > seems to cause no end of confusion in the terminology alone. "Like trying to bite one's own teeth," in the words of Alan Watts. But the idea of teeth-biting, like Escher's drawing of the hands drawing each other, like the Liar's Paradox stating "This statement is a lie", lack the attraction of the oh so intimate subject matter of Self. > > I enjoy precise thought and there's a good amount of that going on > > here, but some of it is precise in the way of Copernicus describing > > the apparent motion of celestial bodies. Elaborate epicycles > > constructed to preserve the assumption of a privileged reference > > point. > > Do you mean Ptolemy? Copernicus was the good guy. Yeah, caught it just after I hit Send. > > It's not about whether or not qualia exist, but about whether the > > concept adds anything of value. > > What about experiences? Valid in the context of some system processing some stimuli. Invalid when used as if it could have meaning independent of any particular instantiation. Our language is fraught with such traps, but it seems to me that these are recognized early on by most thinkers. Much more seductive is the illusion of a discrete Self. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 27 14:34:27 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:34:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com><020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com><024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> On 3/27/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > To amplify Russell's remarks somewhat, there's an assumption running > through this thread that there can be "information" without an > observer, thus the talk about "information flowing" during a "causal > process", but not in the case of a lookup table. There's an essential > subjective element that's being ignored here. Just as any pattern of > bits may be validly said to "be random" or to "contain information", > it depends on the observer. Without specifying the observer, the > statement is meaningless. It's quite possible that I, or Stathis, or anyone is not deciphering this passage correctly, but the picture I'm getting is that to you we must specify an observer as a integral process of any primary process that we wish to describe. If true, this is going to make for a lot of awkwardness. (So I hope it isn't what you mean.) Instead of just describing a process, or an object, in our language L, must L also include an outside perceiver of said process? Bishop Berkeley has returned! I might be unable to say, "the car is traveling down the road" without also discoursing on who is observing the car. (Now I'm sorry again if I'm misinterpreting you, because the following will just be more overkill.) Of course this also leads to infinite regress, because how are we permitted to use a language L that includes a description of a process P and also includes the observer O of P? That would clearly not be adequate, since L ought also to include O', the observer of P+O. Instead, the language of simple realism is vastly preferable, along with the realist postulate that things may exist without being observed. Stathis remarks to this: > Indeed. [what???] But it gets weird when the observer is himself > the product of the information, bootstrapping itself into a self-awareness. Has there been any miscommunication here? I get the feeling that, to use my description above, Stathis has reverted to talking about the process P, WHICH JUST SO HAPPENS, QUITE ACCIDENTALLY, to contain an (impotent) experiencer, who is, shall we say, only reflecting on certain memories and abstract thoughts and isn't perceiving anything outside of himself. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 27 14:43:49 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:43:49 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com><020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com><024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis and Russell had the following exchange: On 3/27/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, then self-aware computations must be lurking all around us in noise, perhaps in > elaborate virtual worlds, but never able to interact in any way with the substrate of their implementation. The only way to avoid > this strange idea is to say that computations can't be self-aware. < I'm surprised---aren't you basically a functionalist who supposes that (shortly in the future) we must expect certain robots whose minds consist only in the execution of computer programs to be fully conscious? Russell writes: > Well as I said I think there are two approaches to this idea, the > Platonist one which embraces it in terms of the Tegmark > multiverse, This is the timeless one. This also comes, say, equating the time axis to the spatial ones. This view says causality and information flow (which subtly brings back the notion of time), aren't required. Yes, this is truly a divide. The only attack on it that I can mount is an appeal to common sense. Rocks aren't conscious, and that goes doubly true for static rocks! :-) > and the Popperian one which bypasses it as irrelevant where > there isn't any way to interact with the purported entities. I disagree with this instrumentalist or operational approach, as do many. But it looks like even Popper could not totally escape the pernicious influences of the early 20th century positivists (if you are right in describing his views this way). Just as Stathis was saying a short time ago, surely whether something is conscious cannot ultimately depend on our ability to gain knowledge about whether it is or not. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 27 14:55:12 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:55:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Are Cyclic Universes Meaningless Without Outside Counters? References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240703261728s524e476aq9a480b139b5dc3f9@mail.gmail.com> <028801c7701a$adf71420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <62c14240703270655u73bc9602s7272be638b4c2dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <02fa01c77080$597827c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Mike writes > Also consider periodicity in an iterative function. There may still > be computation, but unless there is some external counter of history, > there would be no way to determine if a cycle exists. The system > would continue runtime calculations, yet no "new" points are graphed. > (external history might include an extra dimension to track iteration > number at each point, so a given point may exist at multiple iteration > counts) Yes, even *saying* that there are two subsequent identical runs of an entire universe is problematic. Because, just as you say, there is utterly nothing to distinguish them. Omigod! We're right back to Leibnitz's Identity of Indiscernables. :-) But relating this to questions which we seem to be in agreement about but possibly not everyone here, all you'd need is a single little tiny system outside that universe, a little systems whose own entropy could increase and thus make meaningful which of the two runs of the rest of the universe was "first", and which was "second". An example of your "external counter". Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 15:24:53 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:24:53 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0703270824m47b61d29gb389a78ddc723831@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > This is the timeless one. This also comes, say, equating the time > axis to the spatial ones. This view says causality and information > flow (which subtly brings back the notion of time), aren't required. > Yes, this is truly a divide. The only attack on it that I can mount > is an appeal to common sense. Rocks aren't conscious, and that > goes doubly true for static rocks! :-) Indeed, but that doesn't contradict the timeless view - see my subsequent post where I point out why even to a Platonist like me, who is happy with the idea of an array of frames being conscious, it's still wrong to claim rocks are conscious. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 27 15:30:50 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:30:50 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703270824m47b61d29gb389a78ddc723831@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703270824m47b61d29gb389a78ddc723831@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070327153050.GS1512@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:24:53PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote: > Indeed, but that doesn't contradict the timeless view - see my > subsequent post where I point out why even to a Platonist like me, who > is happy with the idea of an array of frames being conscious, it's > still wrong to claim rocks are conscious. I have no trouble with an a sequence of frames being conscious. However, I don't see how e.g. a Hash Life can be validated, without resorting to an explicit construction of subsequent trajectory frames (spacetime plot in CA lingo). The same applies to explicit enumeration. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 27 15:35:07 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:35:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070327153507.GU1512@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:43:49AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Just as Stathis > was saying a short time ago, surely whether something is conscious > cannot ultimately depend on our ability to gain knowledge about > whether it is or not. It then ceases to be science, though. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Mar 27 17:07:18 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:07:18 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > On 3/27/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > > To amplify Russell's remarks somewhat, there's an assumption running > > through this thread that there can be "information" without an > > observer, thus the talk about "information flowing" during a "causal > > process", but not in the case of a lookup table. There's an essential > > subjective element that's being ignored here. Just as any pattern of > > bits may be validly said to "be random" or to "contain information", > > it depends on the observer. Without specifying the observer, the > > statement is meaningless. > > It's quite possible that I, or Stathis, or anyone is not deciphering this > passage correctly, but the picture I'm getting is that to you we must > specify an observer as a integral process of any primary process > that we wish to describe. If true, this is going to make for a lot > of awkwardness. (So I hope it isn't what you mean.) To be meaningful, any statement necessarily entails a context, and context is necessarily subjective; it always only represents a partial view. Is the following sequence random or is it meaningful? Depends entirely on context. "01101101011001010110000101101110011010010110111001100111011001100111010101101100" In everyday conversation the context is specified implicitly. It goes without saying to the extent that we share a common view of things. In scientific communication, every effort is made to specify the context as explicitly and completely as practical, while recognizing that it can never be complete. When philosophizing about the limits of meaning this inherent subjectivity becomes most critical, even if not apparent. And when the philosophical subject turns to subjectivity itself, people often embark down the recursive rabbit hole futilely looking for an exit that can't possibly exist. > Instead of just describing a process, or an object, in our language L, > must L also include an outside perceiver of said process? Bishop > Berkeley has returned! Your "just describing" entails encoding within a highly organized context as described earlier. As a programmer, you certainly realize that your meaningful high-level formulation must be interpreted or compiled to a much broader sequence of machine language before it can be executed by a much broader sequence of transistors switching, implemented by vast patterns of charge transfer in a semiconductor lattice (within a pattern of layers and interconnects), consisting of atoms... expanding on its way to objectivity and meaninglessness. The most meaning was at the highest level of encoding, and meaningful only to you or some similar observer. George Berkeley's epistemology was idealist (as yours seems to be. I recall you favor the idea of platonic existence of numbers, which is symptomatic of the same mindset.) Mine takes a pragmatic form. > I might be unable to say, "the car is traveling down the road" without > also discoursing on who is observing the car. (Now I'm sorry again > if I'm misinterpreting you, because the following will just be more > overkill.) Of course this also leads to infinite regress, because how > are we permitted to use a language L that includes a description of > a process P and also includes the observer O of P? That would > clearly not be adequate, since L ought also to include O', the > observer of P+O. > > Instead, the language of simple realism is vastly preferable, along > with the realist postulate that things may exist without being observed. Lee, you describe the process but you veer off at the last moment and deny the implications. Rather than compromising on "simple realism", one can fully embrace subjectivity with no such compromise. [More on this further below.] As a pragmatic realist, I am saying that we achieve best results by considering something to exist only to the extent that it is observed, and observation is always only indirect. I expect that you value Occam's Razor, which principle is at the core of what I'm saying here. William of Occam, along with mathematical models such as maximum entropy, would strongly suggest that you abstain from postulating entities that may exist without being observed. > Stathis remarks to this: > > > Indeed. [what???] But it gets weird when the observer is himself > > the product of the information, bootstrapping itself into a self-awareness. It only seems weird when one tries to follow the rabbit hole to see where it leads. It's quite naturally a recursive rabbit hole (due to the subject being inherently subjective) so it only goes deeper, but never exits. Although we're surrounded by recursive processes in nature, most people never internalize the concept. Even many (if not most) programmers of software never get comfortable with recursion even though it is supremely powerful and elegant as a means of expression (when appropriate, and notwithstanding the associated issues of finite machine resources.) > Has there been any miscommunication here? I get the feeling that, to > use my description above, Stathis has reverted to talking about the > process P, WHICH JUST SO HAPPENS, QUITE ACCIDENTALLY, > to contain an (impotent) experiencer, who is, shall we say, only reflecting > on certain memories and abstract thoughts and isn't perceiving anything > outside of himself. I found it very difficult to parse the preceding paragraph, but one element stood out: Rather than saying it "contains an experiencer", can you see it as "expressing an experiencer"? Do you see an essential difference? - Jef From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 27 17:15:04 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:15:04 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> At 05:00 AM 3/27/2007 -0400, Robert wrote: >Longevity evolves along various vectors given the minimization of >the external hazard function which seems associated with in a shift >from R-selection to K-selection. Do marine and aerial critters suffer to the same extent as land beasties from infection by microorganisms? I know nothing at all about this, but it occurs to me that disease vectors might be far more ubiquitous in oceans, since there'd be fewer "natural barriers" such as mountains and other land interruptions to easy migration. I wonder if whales that spend their lives moving vast distances north and south might have already developed early immunity to many diseases that might clobber more territorial and hence immuno-naive animals. Or am I talking through my hat? Damien Broderick From jef at jefallbright.net Tue Mar 27 17:24:50 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:24:50 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Stathis and Russell had the following exchange: > > On 3/27/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, then self-aware computations must be lurking all around us in noise, perhaps in > > elaborate virtual worlds, but never able to interact in any way with the substrate of their implementation. The only way to avoid > > this strange idea is to say that computations can't be self-aware. > < > > I'm surprised---aren't you basically a functionalist who supposes > that (shortly in the future) we must expect certain robots whose > minds consist only in the execution of computer programs to be > fully conscious? > > Russell writes: > > > Well as I said I think there are two approaches to this idea, the > > Platonist one which embraces it in terms of the Tegmark > > multiverse, > > This is the timeless one. This also comes, say, equating the time > axis to the spatial ones. This view says causality and information > flow (which subtly brings back the notion of time), aren't required. > Yes, this is truly a divide. The only attack on it that I can mount > is an appeal to common sense. Rocks aren't conscious, and that > goes doubly true for static rocks! :-) And atoms can't be hot, but ensembles of atoms can. And atoms can't be alive, but certain structures made of atoms can. And what is it that live structures have that non-alive structures do not? Look closely and you find--elan vital? Qualia or subjective experience? No, you find that the structures function in a way that we describe as alive, or describe as conscious. And if they have the particular functional capability, they can even tell you themselves that they have subjective experience. But there's no evidence that anything fundamentally mysterious is going on. Other than that people tend to be baffled by recursion, especially if they're part of the process, especially if they've evolved a strong preference for a first-person point of view. Objects can be said to have subjective experience to the extent that they demonstrate a model of self which they can introspect. This definition applies just as well to rocks and GLUTs as it does to dogs as it does to humans. - Jef From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 18:50:35 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:50:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 05:00 AM 3/27/2007 -0400, Robert wrote: > > >Longevity evolves along various vectors given the minimization of > >the external hazard function which seems associated with in a shift > >from R-selection to K-selection. > > Do marine and aerial critters suffer to the same extent as land > beasties from infection by microorganisms? Ah, that reminds me of the 4th (or part of the 3rd) criteria for K-selection. They are: intelligence, size, extreme defenses and flight. (Flight could be considered a form of an extreme defense although the prototypical example is shells). I don't know the answer with respect to water vs. air transmission rates for microbes. There oceans are teaming with microorganisms that more or less peacefully coexist (and in some cases, e.g. coral & tube worms) are synergistic with their hosts). It is a general principle in biology that the war between hosts and parasites tends to evolve towards "mutual coexistance" as any extremely pathological organisms that prey upon and kill their hosts will soon go extinct as well. Usually one has to adopt a strategy of evolving towards peaceful (or productive) coexistence, or being a minor annoyance (mosquitoes?). It is true that a number of major human diseases tend to be water borne rather than air borne (cholera for example). The nasty part generally occurs when an organism migrates from its natural host (which may have defenses) to an unnatural one which may not. I think for example that one working hypothesis for things like Ebola viruses is that bats may serve as the normal reservoir for them. I know nothing at all > about this, but it occurs to me that disease vectors might be far > more ubiquitous in oceans, since there'd be fewer "natural barriers" > such as mountains and other land interruptions to easy migration. Not really, the above argument says that one evolves towards relative coexistence between host and hosted. I wonder if whales that spend their lives moving vast distances north > and south might have already developed early immunity to many > diseases that might clobber more territorial and hence immuno-naive > animals. The limit on the evolution of the "size" vector is the requirement for the consumption of massive quantities of food to sustain oneself. So elephants eat all the plants in sight and whales eat all the plankton or all of the squid (or in the case of killer whales all of the seals). The long migrations of whales are generally due to the fact that the seasonal changes (esp. sunlight and micronutrient availability) significantly changes the quantity of food available in specific parts of the ocean. And the elephants and whales have large enough memories and long enough lives to know exactly where the abundant resources may be. It is perhaps true that large migrations might have exposed one to a greater variety of microorganisms (and thus promoted immune system development) but I have to think that microorganisms and their hosts in the ocean evolved to a relative standstill long ago. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Mar 27 19:44:22 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:44:22 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327143942.0225a850@satx.rr.com> At 02:50 PM 3/27/2007 -0400, Robert wrote: >It is true that a number of major human diseases tend to be water >borne rather than air borne (cholera for example). But isn't that typically stagnant water? >one evolves towards relative coexistence between host and hosted. ... >I have to think that microorganisms and their hosts in the ocean >evolved to a relative standstill long ago. That's my assumption too, and is presumably largely due to the factor I mentioned, that there are fewer boundaries in the oceans to enable localized populations of bugs to develop without contact with others of their kind. Damien Broderick From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 20:04:15 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:04:15 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I expect that you value Occam's Razor, which principle is at the core > of what I'm saying here. William of Occam, along with mathematical > models such as maximum entropy, would strongly suggest that you > abstain from postulating entities that may exist without being > observed. ### Do prime numbers exist? I have never seen one. What would it mean to "observe" a prime number, or indeed any mathematically describable structure? I feel that you are invoking the razor in vain. It is not intended to shave the number of entities but rather the number of ideas we have about entities. Rafal From eugen at leitl.org Tue Mar 27 20:38:01 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:38:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:04:15PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### Do prime numbers exist? I have never seen one. What would it mean Some animals can count, but only people (as far as we know) do primes. > to "observe" a prime number, or indeed any mathematically describable > structure? You can't. They don't exist, but in people's heads, and in hardware derived from people's heads. Neither plasma nor interstellar ice grains can count. It takes people or computers to do that. > I feel that you are invoking the razor in vain. It is not intended to > shave the number of entities but rather the number of ideas we have > about entities. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue Mar 27 23:53:55 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:53:55 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <01d201c76e78$225894f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com><020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com><024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <030901c770cb$d7c82a80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> >> > It's not about whether or not qualia exist, but about whether the >> > concept adds anything of value. >> >> What about experiences? > > Valid in the context of some system processing some stimuli. Invalid > when used as if it could have meaning independent of any particular > instantiation. To pick a nit, by "having an experience", I think most of us would mean simply being conscious (as someone said), and this can happen without stimulation from outside the system. Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 28 00:13:14 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:13:14 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> References: <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On 3/27/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > I expect that you value Occam's Razor, which principle is at the core > > of what I'm saying here. William of Occam, along with mathematical > > models such as maximum entropy, would strongly suggest that you > > abstain from postulating entities that may exist without being > > observed. > > ### Do prime numbers exist? I have never seen one. What would it mean > to "observe" a prime number, or indeed any mathematically describable > structure? > > I feel that you are invoking the razor in vain. It is not intended to > shave the number of entities but rather the number of ideas we have > about entities. -------------------------- It seems we have a subtle mix of issues here. Let me restore some context that was deleted from your response: Lee: >>> Instead, the language of simple realism is vastly preferable, along >>> with the realist postulate that things may exist without being observed. Jef: >> As a pragmatic realist, I am saying that we achieve best results by >> considering something to exist only to the extent that it is observed, >> and observation is always only indirect. [Then my statement applying Occam's Razor.] >> I expect that you value Occam's Razor, which principle is at the core >> of what I'm saying here. William of Occam, along with mathematical >> models such as maximum entropy, would strongly suggest that you >> abstain from postulating entities that may exist without being >> observed. [Rafal's response.] > ### Do prime numbers exist? I have never seen one. What would it mean > to "observe" a prime number, or indeed any mathematically describable > structure? > > I feel that you are invoking the razor in vain. It is not intended to > shave the number of entities but rather the number of ideas we have > about entities. I think you have this reversed. Occam's razor (and the mathematics supporting it as a valid heuristic) advise us that it is preferable to increase the complexity of a theory if by doing so we can reduce the complexity of its ontology (number of entities seen to exist.) The standard example of this is the general theory of relativity which reduces five entities: matter, energy, space, time and gravity, to energy-matter and space-time with gravity disappearing as a separate entity.[1] Now, Lee's point was slightly different. He claimed that it is "vastly preferable" to believe "the realist postulate that things may exist without being observed." Reading this I first rule out the overly simplistic and absurd possibility that he thinks that I claim that objects cease to exist if they are no longer observable, like the reported cognition of an infant under four months old when an object is hidden using a box. I think he's arguing the "common sense", "simple realism" epistemic viewpoint that one can damn well talk about the reality of things without invoking the never ending chain of qualifications implied by the necessity of an observer. I try to share a more sophisticated epistemology (which may be mistaken for denying reality) and support this firstly by declaring that *all* observation is indirect (we have no simple direct unbiased access to reality, because we're embedded in it) and secondly, that a pragmatic subjective approach is supported by Ockhams's heuristic, Bayes theorem, and mathematics of information theory such as the maximum entropy approach to epistemic probability. Knowing you as well as I (virtually) do, Rafal, I'm guessing you were reacting to what you saw as a denial of reality tantamount to evil along the lines of postmodernism or Richard Rorty, (whom I also find irritating and distasteful, although I think their positions are often caricaturized.) I am a realist, but one who recognizes our intrinsically subjective nature. My epistemology is also a pragmatic one because I claim effective, but not logically provable belief in a consistent (but expanding) reality. I am not denying reality by any means, but arguing that a more sophisticated approach is required, recognizing our intrinsic subjectivity (the importance of context), if we are to extrapolate much beyond our everyday theories of subjective experience, self, personal identity, morality, and more. Please let me know if I have misinterpreted you in any significant way. I highly respect what I see as your keen (but slightly rigid and reactionary) thinking. - Jef 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor#Entities_and_explanations From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue Mar 27 22:12:16 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:12:16 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: [EP_group] It's a Bot-Eat-Bot World By Gisela Telis Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070327171141.0419cf20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> > >Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:44:58 +0200 (CEST) > >It's a Bot-Eat-Bot World >By Gisela Telis >ScienceNOW Daily News >22 February 2007 > >Alliances, deceptions, and even some shoving: It could be reality >television, or it could be insect expert Laurent Keller's lab at the >University of Lausanne in Switzerland. Keller and his interdisciplinary >team of researchers have condensed thousands of years of evolution into a >weeklong battle of the bots that demonstrates for the first time how >social creatures evolve to communicate--and how, in a pinch, they evolve >to deceive as well. >Experts disagree over exactly when and how communication arose among >social animals. Evolutionary biologists suspect that early communication >may have developed as a way for closely related individuals to boost each >other's chances for survival. Studying such evolution in the lab is >practically impossible, however, because most socially sophisticated >creatures, such as bees or monkeys, can take hundreds of generations to >show substantial behavioral changes. > >Enter the s-bots, robots fated to live, reproduce, and die within 2 >minutes. Keller and company equipped these 15-centimeter-tall subjects >with wheels, a camera, a ground sensor, and a virtual "genome"--a computer >program that dictated their responses to their environment. Some of the >robots also had blue lights they could turn on or off. The robots then >entered a foraging environment consisting of a "food" source and a >"poison" source. Robots that found food were "mated" with other successful >robots: Their genomes were recombined into new programming for the next >generation. Robots that didn't find food, or that found poison, saw their >genomes vanish from the game. > >In one set of experiments, robots entered the game as part of a larger >colony. When most members of the colony found food, individuals from the >entire group stood a good chance of having their genome make it to the >next generation. In another set of experiments, it was every bot for itself. > >During the course of 500 generations, or about a week, the robots evolved >to use their blue lights to communicate. Some groups flashed them to tell >others where the food was; other groups used them to warn of the presence >of poison. As the tactic worked and the genomes of successful >communicators survived, the robots became more and more efficient at foraging. > >The researchers expected the lone bots to largely ignore each other. But >they were surprised, says Sara Mitri, a graduate student involved in the >experiment. Bots acting alone developed the same communication strategies, >along with some strategies of deception. When surrounded by their kin, the >incentive of trying to get their genome--or one similar to theirs--into >the next round of the game kept the cooperation going. But when surrounded >by "stranger" bots with dissimilar genomes, they flashed their blue lights >far from food to sabotage the nonkin bots' chances for survival. "We did >not expect that they would evolve such a sophisticated system of >communication," says Keller. He says the results--presented online today >in Current Biology--confirm that kinship and pressure to succeed as a >group help give rise to social behavior, even the unsavory kind. > >"I think this is really, really stunning," says Lee Dugatkin, an >evolutionary biologist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Using >robots to understand the evolution of communication opens the door to >testing more complicated aspects of social behavior, such as reciprocity, >he adds. "It has tremendous potential ... to address all sorts of >questions that haven't been answered yet." > >Source: Science >http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/222/1?etoc > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EP_group/ > ><*> Your email settings: > Individual Email | Traditional > ><*> To change settings online go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EP_group/join > (Yahoo! ID required) > ><*> To change settings via email: > mailto:EP_group-digest at yahoogroups.com > mailto:EP_group-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > EP_group-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 28 00:41:56 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:41:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com><020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com><024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com><02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <031101c770d2$2593e140$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > To be meaningful, any statement necessarily entails a context, and > context is necessarily subjective; it always only represents a partial > view. Is the following sequence random or is it meaningful? Depends > entirely on context. > "01101101011001010110000101101110011010010110111001100111011001100111010101101100" The meaning of that sequence, or whether it is random, surely does, as you say, depend on context. But I can assert the following sentence: S: "The string above contains no substring consisting entirely of seven 1's." I say that S does not depend on subjectivity or context or what-have-you. S ought to be regarded as simply true. True, you have to know what is being said by the sentence, the meaning, and to understand that an aspect of reality is being addressed, and this does requires knowing English and all. You probably want to say that S (so that I don't have to type it out again) cannot be separated from being expressed in English, from depending on a comp-sci meaning of "substring", and so on. Here we probably just differ. To me, S is only *about* that blasted string. The intent is never to focus on S itself, but only what it's about. S merely represents a true state of affairs. To those who can understand it, S is making a true claim about something entirely divorced from S, namely, that string you composed. > In scientific communication, every effort is made to specify the > context as explicitly and completely as practical, while recognizing > that it can never be complete. > > When philosophizing about the limits of meaning this inherent > subjectivity becomes most critical, even if not apparent. And when > the philosophical subject turns to subjectivity itself, people often > embark down the recursive rabbit hole futilely looking for an exit > that can't possibly exist. To me, most of the excursions where we turn focus away from what we are talking about and instead towards the representations themselves of those things we are talking about invite infinite regress, and lack of clarity. Here is another sentence that I like to throw down in discussions like this, which I call H, the Great Hawaiian Truth: H: "Some people have been to Hawaii." To me, it's just a cardinal mistake to either try to dispute its truth, or to try to complicate a very simple proposition by muddying the waters with notions of context or subjectivity. > George Berkeley's epistemology was idealist (as yours seems to be. I > recall you favor the idea of platonic existence of numbers, which is > symptomatic of the same mindset.) Mine takes a pragmatic form. No, I'm a pretty hard-core realist. Just a *mathematical* Platonist, though I'll concede that it's probably impossible to completely isolate the mathematics from the rest of all ideas. > As a pragmatic realist, I am saying that we achieve best results by > considering something to exist only to the extent that it is observed, > and observation is always only indirect. So you mean to say that S Doradus doesn't have planets because they have not been observed? What if---per impossible to you? ---they do exist and they nonetheless affect something that is observed? And what if they're only the sizes of atoms, and don't perceptively affect anything? Sounds to me like you are trying to deconstruct common sense. Here is an Einstein quote for you, before you say anything about that last: "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concept of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking." ---"Physics and Reality" >> Has there been any miscommunication here? I get the feeling that, to >> use my description above, Stathis has reverted to talking about the >> process P...which happens to contain an (impotent) experiencer, >> who is, shall we say, only reflecting on certain memories and abstract >> thoughts and isn't perceiving anything outside of himself. > > I found it very difficult to parse the preceding paragraph, but one > element stood out: Rather than saying it "contains an experiencer", > can you see it as "expressing an experiencer"? Do you see an essential > difference? Well, I've already made one mistake by saying that a system has an "internal experiencer". All I meant, was "the system has an experience", but it caused confusion. In the instance you give above, I should not have said that a *process* contains an experiencer; indeed, that is confusing. Perhaps "expresses" would have been a better word choice, as you suggest. Or maybe just "that process is having an experience". Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 28 00:50:58 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:50:58 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant References: <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com><024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com><02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <031601c770d3$8ee71df0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > I try to share a more sophisticated epistemology...and support this > firstly by declaring that *all* observation is indirect... Different conventions, I guess. To me, objects are seen by someone or something, and that's all. To you, perhaps that's just an everyday abbreviation for "the photons bouncing off the car are seen", and in turn, that is probably shorthand for something even more indirect that involves more truths about the seer (such as nerve endings or retinas). ("There are *no* direct observations", you write. Are there direct references, I wonder, just for the sake of curiosity?) As Sunny Auyang wrote in her great physics/philosophy book "How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible", "I have never seen a sense impression in my life." Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 28 00:54:43 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:54:43 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: [EP_group] It's a Bot-Eat-Bot World By GiselaTelis References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070327171141.0419cf20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <031701c770d4$42c73e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Pretty amazing, all right. Amazing that the robotics have become so advanced. But was anything learned, or really achieved, that would not have been arrived at in the usual A-Life simulations that have been going on so long? Lee >>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 20:44:58 +0200 (CEST) >> >>It's a Bot-Eat-Bot World >>By Gisela Telis >>ScienceNOW Daily News >>22 February 2007 >> >>Alliances, deceptions, and even some shoving: It could be reality >>television, or it could be insect expert Laurent Keller's lab at the >>University of Lausanne in Switzerland. Keller and his interdisciplinary >>team of researchers have condensed thousands of years of evolution into a >>weeklong battle of the bots that demonstrates for the first time how >>social creatures evolve to communicate--and how, in a pinch, they evolve >>to deceive as well. >>Experts disagree over exactly when and how communication arose among >>social animals. Evolutionary biologists suspect that early communication >>may have developed as a way for closely related individuals to boost each >>other's chances for survival. Studying such evolution in the lab is >>practically impossible, however, because most socially sophisticated >>creatures, such as bees or monkeys, can take hundreds of generations to >>show substantial behavioral changes. >> >>Enter the s-bots, robots fated to live, reproduce, and die within 2 >>minutes. Keller and company equipped these 15-centimeter-tall subjects >>with wheels, a camera, a ground sensor, and a virtual "genome"--a computer >>program that dictated their responses to their environment. Some of the >>robots also had blue lights they could turn on or off. The robots then >>entered a foraging environment consisting of a "food" source and a >>"poison" source. Robots that found food were "mated" with other successful >>robots: Their genomes were recombined into new programming for the next >>generation. Robots that didn't find food, or that found poison, saw their >>genomes vanish from the game. >> >>In one set of experiments, robots entered the game as part of a larger >>colony. When most members of the colony found food, individuals from the >>entire group stood a good chance of having their genome make it to the >>next generation. In another set of experiments, it was every bot for itself. >> >>During the course of 500 generations, or about a week, the robots evolved >>to use their blue lights to communicate. Some groups flashed them to tell >>others where the food was; other groups used them to warn of the presence >>of poison. As the tactic worked and the genomes of successful >>communicators survived, the robots became more and more efficient at foraging. >> >>The researchers expected the lone bots to largely ignore each other. But >>they were surprised, says Sara Mitri, a graduate student involved in the >>experiment. Bots acting alone developed the same communication strategies, >>along with some strategies of deception. When surrounded by their kin, the >>incentive of trying to get their genome--or one similar to theirs--into >>the next round of the game kept the cooperation going. But when surrounded >>by "stranger" bots with dissimilar genomes, they flashed their blue lights >>far from food to sabotage the nonkin bots' chances for survival. "We did >>not expect that they would evolve such a sophisticated system of >>communication," says Keller. He says the results--presented online today >>in Current Biology--confirm that kinship and pressure to succeed as a >>group help give rise to social behavior, even the unsavory kind. >> >>"I think this is really, really stunning," says Lee Dugatkin, an >>evolutionary biologist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Using >>robots to understand the evolution of communication opens the door to >>testing more complicated aspects of social behavior, such as reciprocity, >>he adds. "It has tremendous potential ... to address all sorts of >>questions that haven't been answered yet." >> >>Source: Science >>http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/222/1?etoc >> >> >> >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> >>Yahoo! Groups Links >> >><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EP_group/ >> >><*> Your email settings: >> Individual Email | Traditional >> >><*> To change settings online go to: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EP_group/join >> (Yahoo! ID required) >> >><*> To change settings via email: >> mailto:EP_group-digest at yahoogroups.com >> mailto:EP_group-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com >> >><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >> EP_group-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com >> >><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: >> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From nanogirl at halcyon.com Wed Mar 28 01:47:14 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:47:14 -0800 Subject: [extropy-chat] The classics References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070327171141.0419cf20@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <005a01c770db$1166ffa0$0200a8c0@Nano> I'm very proud of my latest animation which is a tribute to a couple of great legends. Hope you have as much fun watching it as I did making it! To go to the webpage and download the movie visit: http://www.nanogirl.com/personal/theclassics.htm I invite you to also comment at my blog - I would love to hear your thoughts! The blog: http://maxanimation.blogspot.com/2007/03/classics.html 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 fauxever at sprynet.com Wed Mar 28 00:59:26 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:59:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bizarre Hexagon Spotted on Saturn Message-ID: <01a101c770d4$55900cf0$6501a8c0@brainiac> ... and it looks just like a template I sometimes used for quilting when I was very young: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070327_saturn_hex.html From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 01:58:30 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:58:30 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <62c14240703271858xf9649dcm315062bf5256c086@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > fundamentally mysterious is going on. Other than that people tend to > be baffled by recursion, especially if they're part of the process, > especially if they've evolved a strong preference for a first-person > point of view. How about defining the grayscales of consciousness by the number of levels of recursion that a subject is able to maintain without dissociative personality splitting? (ex: resorting to some fundamental indivisibility or supreme overbeing) > Objects can be said to have subjective experience to the extent that > they demonstrate a model of self which they can introspect. This > definition applies just as well to rocks and GLUTs as it does to dogs > as it does to humans. perhaps those "static rocks" are at an exit case of recursion, at either extreme meaning of "I am" and nothing else. From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 28 04:33:02 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:33:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <031601c770d3$8ee71df0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <031601c770d3$8ee71df0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Jef writes > > > I try to share a more sophisticated epistemology...and support this > > firstly by declaring that *all* observation is indirect... [Restoring some relevant context] ... *all* observation is indirect (we have no simple direct unbiased access to reality, because we're embedded in it)... > Different conventions, I guess. Clearly more than conventions, as I have described, and as you likely know since you and I have gone around around this loop more than once. >To me, objects are seen by > someone or something, and that's all. To you, perhaps that's > just an everyday abbreviation for "the photons bouncing off > the car are seen", and in turn, that is probably shorthand for > something even more indirect that involves more truths about > the seer (such as nerve endings or retinas). It's significant that you accept that there can be distortion in the sensory channels but fail to accept--or even consider--that when I say fnord "we have no simple direct unbiased access to reality, because we're embedded in it," fnord I mean that these biases run throughout the entire system that you consider you. It's as if that key statement (which you omitted from your redaction) didn't fit your reality so it had no meaning for you. > ("There are *no* > direct observations", you write. Are there direct references, I > wonder, just for the sake of curiosity?) Yes, of course, within context. Just as you can have perfectly effective references within the context of code that you write. Just as we can have perfectively effective communication between us as long as we stay within a mutual context. > As Sunny Auyang wrote in her great physics/philosophy > book "How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible", > > "I have never seen a sense impression in my life." She makes a valid point; there is no such privileged point of view within the system. But the system known as Sunny Auyang has certainly processed many sense impressions. - Jef From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 04:51:51 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:51:51 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Damien Broderick wrote: Do marine and aerial critters suffer to the same extent as land > beasties from infection by microorganisms? I know nothing at all > about this, but it occurs to me that disease vectors might be far > more ubiquitous in oceans, since there'd be fewer "natural barriers" > such as mountains and other land interruptions to easy migration. I > wonder if whales that spend their lives moving vast distances north > and south might have already developed early immunity to many > diseases that might clobber more territorial and hence immuno-naive > animals. Or am I talking through my hat? There are two types of longevity: that which seems to be genetically programmed and that affected by accidents and infectious diseases. Average life span in humans in poorer countries is shorter than in wealthier countries due to a higher prevalence of and greater susceptibility to infectious disease, but maximum life span is not that different. The degenerative diseases of aging are not generally thought to be due to infectious agents. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 28 05:14:07 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:14:07 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070328000512.022f7970@satx.rr.com> At 02:51 PM 3/28/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote: >Average life span in humans in poorer countries is shorter than in >wealthier countries due to a higher prevalence of and greater >susceptibility to infectious disease, but maximum life span is not >that different. The degenerative diseases of aging are not generally >thought to be due to infectious agents. Of course (although I wouldn't rule out *some* degenerative diseases being due to an unavoidable accumulation of infection insults; cf. heart diseases and bacteria). I'm hinting at something a bit more subtle. Some birdies live very much longer than ground critters that are metabolically very similar. The usual explanation is that the lack of lots of natural aerial predators for these birdies allows genetic drift, mutation, etc to extend their longevity, since antagonistic pleiotropy is not pushing the value of adaptations that are not usually injurious due to natural early mortality from predation, intraspecific sex-contest injury, or infection. My thought was that perhaps whales might benefit from some such effect, but on a microscale. Of course, this would be true on a macroscale as well, as with elephants. Or maybe it's just a fluke. (Sorry.) Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 07:25:53 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:55:53 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: Neither plasma nor interstellar ice grains can count. It takes people > or computers to do that. A human shuffles beads on an abacus and thereby counts. The same sequence of bead movements is reproduced by the wind, with no-one watching. Has "counting" still occurred? A human presses buttons on a pocket calculator and thereby adds two numbers together. The same sequence of button presses is reproduced by a cat playing with the calculator. Has "addition" still occurred? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 08:00:31 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:30:31 +0930 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com> <02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Stathis wrote > > > Yes, I am supposing for the sake of argument that the completely looked > up states are 100% zombies. At the other end we have the > > completely computed states which are 100% conscious (or whatever your > favourite term for this is - I think we all know what I'm > > referring to). In between, we have a possible spectrum of partly > computed states, ranging from (1 square looked up, the rest > > computed) to (50% squares looked up, 50% computed) to (1 square > computed, the rest looked up). > < > > Yes. > > > You've agreed that these intermediate cases won't have intermediate > levels of > > consciousness, hence they must all be either fully conscious or fully > zombies. > > I'm sorry, there has been some miscommunication. I have agreed that (of > course!) > no aberrant thoughts would occur---that is, no new brain states. > > Now since you've admitted (at least the two of us agree!) that one might > be 100% > zombie at time t1, and 100% truly-having-experiences at time t2, then you > admit that these periods could change back and forth with exceeding > rapidity. > That is, you might be a zombie for a thousandth of a second, and conscious > the next thousandth. I'm really saying no more than this. It > amounts---when > averaged out---to being only fractionally "there" during some larger > period > of time. > > If taken to the limit, then this particular 50/50 example would mean to me > that one state would be computed, then the next looked up, then the next > computed and so on. Just as "being a zombie for 1 hour" and then "being > completely conscious for 1 hour" can alternate meaningfully, then so can > each, what?, billionth of a second. By 50/50 I don't mean that half the frames of the simulation are computed and half looked up, but that half the *board* (or half your brain) is computed (or biological) and half looked up (or electronic). This 50/50 situation could continue frame after frame for hours. I suppose it isn't impossible that the subject's consciousness is rapidly flickering during this interval, but it seems a very ad hoc theory to me. Could you calculate or measure the frequency of the flickering? And what about the fact that, however short the conscious phase is, it is still occurring in the setting of half the board being looked up? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 28 08:42:52 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:42:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 04:55:53PM +0930, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > A human shuffles beads on an abacus and thereby counts. The same If anything external is not tracking what the abacus does, then nobody counts nothing. > sequence of bead movements is reproduced by the wind, with no-one > watching. Has "counting" still occurred? No, of course. Until something or someone who can read the bead arrangment comes along, and reads the number. The counting process is an abstract measurement upon a particular physical system configuration. In order to do that, you need a) an appropriate physical system b) appropriate configuration c) an agent capable of that measurement. Of course, in some cases you can have all three in the same entity. > A human presses buttons on a pocket calculator and thereby adds two > numbers together. The same sequence of button presses is reproduced by > a cat playing with the calculator. Has "addition" still occurred? As I already said, some animals, humans and human-derived systems can do numerics. The calculator keeps track of button presses, so it is tracking events on own power. The cat couldn't care less, being reduced to the role of an event generator. If you instantly rapture(TM) all counting animals, people, and human-derived systems numbers instantly become meaningless arrangements. Until somebody or something comes along, and reinvents the concept. Then numbers are here again. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 28 08:44:52 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:44:52 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com> <02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070328084452.GM1512@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 05:30:31PM +0930, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > By 50/50 I don't mean that half the frames of the simulation are > computed and half looked up, but that half the *board* (or half your How do you differentiate computation versus a table look up? As far as I can see they're implementation details. Not important, unless you want to look inside a black box. > brain) is computed (or biological) and half looked up (or electronic). > This 50/50 situation could continue frame after frame for hours. I > suppose it isn't impossible that the subject's consciousness is > rapidly flickering during this interval, but it seems a very ad hoc > theory to me. Could you calculate or measure the frequency of the > flickering? And what about the fact that, however short the conscious > phase is, it is still occurring in the setting of half the board being > looked up? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 09:24:40 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:24:40 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <030901c770cb$d7c82a80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <030901c770cb$d7c82a80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > To pick a nit, by "having an experience", I think most of us would > mean simply being conscious (as someone said), and this can > happen without stimulation from outside the system. > To pick a bigger nit, I understood that the sensory deprivaton experiments showed that a human brain without stimulation rapidly descends into chaos that can hardly be called consciousness. I suspect also that as the stimulation from outside is what causes brain pathways to grow and change, that over time there would be severe physical changes in the brain. Some researchers go so far as to phrase the claim that without an outside world to communicate with, the human brain cannot exist. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 28 09:51:01 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:51:01 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <01f801c76f23$ac5b46b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <030901c770cb$d7c82a80$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070328095101.GT1512@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:24:40AM +0100, BillK wrote: > To pick a bigger nit, I understood that the sensory deprivaton > experiments showed that a human brain without stimulation rapidly > descends into chaos that can hardly be called consciousness. You can package observers into a virtual environment, which is more than enough stimulation. In fact, you need a lot less resources for the virtual environment than for the observer, at a guess down to few % of what you need for an observer. > I suspect also that as the stimulation from outside is what causes > brain pathways to grow and change, that over time there would be > severe physical changes in the brain. > > Some researchers go so far as to phrase the claim that without an > outside world to communicate with, the human brain cannot exist. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 09:51:59 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:51:59 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 04:55:53PM +0930, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > A human shuffles beads on an abacus and thereby counts. The same > > If anything external is not tracking what the abacus does, then > nobody counts nothing. > > > sequence of bead movements is reproduced by the wind, with no-one > > watching. Has "counting" still occurred? > > No, of course. Until something or someone who can read the bead arrangment > comes along, and reads the number. The counting process is an abstract > measurement upon a particular physical system configuration. In order > to do that, you need a) an appropriate physical system b) appropriate > configuration c) an agent capable of that measurement. Of course, in > some cases you can have all three in the same entity. A simple program which counts to itself and is aware that it is counting to itself is implemented on an abacus by the programmer. The same program is implemented by an ignorant person following rules, and again, by fantastic luck, by the wind blowing the beads in just the right way. Can the program be said to have been implemented in each case? Is the program equally self-aware in each case? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 10:32:41 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:32:41 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, then self-aware computations > must be lurking all around us in noise, perhaps in > > elaborate virtual worlds, but never able to interact in any way with the > substrate of their implementation. The only way to avoid > > this strange idea is to say that computations can't be self-aware. > < > > I'm surprised---aren't you basically a functionalist who supposes > that (shortly in the future) we must expect certain robots whose > minds consist only in the execution of computer programs to be > fully conscious? Yes, that's what I think is most likely to happen, but the metaphysical sequelae of this idea, even though they lack empirically testable consequences, are still pretty weird. For example, if any computation could be hiding in noise, then our world could be a simulation, perhaps an infinitely nested one, as a result of all possible computations being run. On the other hand, if the anti-computationalists such as Searle and Penrose are correct, there is a real physical world, rocks don't think even surreptitiously, and only the very special collections of matter inside skulls can give rise to consciousness. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 28 10:39:51 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:39:51 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: References: <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070328103951.GV1512@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:51:59PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > A simple program which counts to itself What does that mean? Would main(){int i;for(i=0;1;i++);} qualify as a "simple program which counts to itself"? Or does it have to be a machine vision package, and a robotic arm operating the abacus? I can't parse the "to itself" requirement. > and is aware that it is What does "aware" means in this context? Is it a boolean, and can you give me a state diagram for it? Or is it a full-blown introspection (and how would you implement that?) > counting to itself is implemented on an abacus by the programmer. The Um, are you really talking about the abacus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus It doesn't do anything without a human operator, can't be programmed and certainly can't do any loops. In case you're wondering, no, I'm not being anal-retentive. You need some basic functionality for a system to fly. > same program is implemented by an ignorant person following rules, and Are you aiming for the Chinese room, perchance? > again, by fantastic luck, by the wind blowing the beads in just the I don't know what your scenario is, but if it involves impossible events, you can just drop it. Stochastical physical systems don't build complexity, unless they reach into self-rep territory. > right way. Can the program be said to have been implemented in each > case? Is the program equally self-aware in each case? You know, for a person that wouldn't the simple Hash Life observer model you're awfully demanding. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 11:31:14 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:31:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327143942.0225a850@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070327143942.0225a850@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > But isn't that typically stagnant water? Not always. We had a case in MA recently of an animal falling into a local town's water tank and polluting it with bacteria but cholera can often break out in moving bodies of water (especially common is transfer from an upstream (waste) source to downstream water usage - when sufficient purification is unavailable). That's my assumption too, and is presumably largely due to the factor > I mentioned, that there are fewer boundaries in the oceans to enable > localized populations of bugs to develop without contact with others > of their kind. This could be debated. I suspect there are wide variations (and dominant species) comparing bacteria found in the arctic with bacteria found in the antarctic. One of the things which has become clearer only recently is the extent to which bacteria exist as "communities" where specific individual species shoulder part of the "biochemical burden" the community requires for existence. The balance between the largest organisms and the smallest can best be viewed as a delicate balance over longer time scales. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 11:43:05 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:43:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070328000512.022f7970@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070328000512.022f7970@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Some birdies live very much longer than ground critters that > are metabolically very similar. The usual explanation is that the > lack of lots of natural aerial predators for these birdies allows > genetic drift, mutation, etc to extend their longevity, since > antagonistic pleiotropy is not pushing the value of adaptations that > are not usually injurious due to natural early mortality from > predation, intraspecific sex-contest injury, or infection. Actually this gets a bit tricky. The real probable cause for longevity in flight enabled creatures is the ability to select environments that nobody else is adapted to (think cave dwelling bats for example). The problem with predators is that is its a "hazardous" profession. Lions get stabbed by dusks, elephants fall on you, etc. This ends up predators usually prey on things which are smaller. But smaller has less inertia and is therefore faster. (Do hawks prey on hummingbirds?) The size vector, particularly if you can combine it with intelligent social groups (more watchful eyes for predators, collective food harvesting activities, etc.) tends to allow one excellent management of the "predator" problem, but still leaves one wrestling with the food resource problem (witness bowhead & blue whales, elephants, whale sharks which are all long lived). Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 11:53:05 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:53:05 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070327120536.02325490@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Average life span in humans in poorer countries is shorter than in > wealthier countries due to a higher prevalence of and greater susceptibility > to infectious disease, but maximum life span is not that different. The > degenerative diseases of aging are not generally thought to be due to > infectious agents. > Actually there are a number of reasons for lower life expectancy in less developed countries. First is probably poorer nutrition simply due to the fact one is a less affluent society. The degenerative diseases are not due to infectious agents, they are due to a combination of minor program defects (hypercholestrolemia, cancer predisposition, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc.), involving hundreds to thousands of genes, and "fundamental flaws" in the basic design of genomes, esp. the oxidative phosphorylation pathway in the mitochondria and the Non-Homologous End Joining DNA repair pathway for DNA double strand breaks. It is true that the "fundamental flaws" do contribute to a decline in the function of the immune system (and many other organ systems) with age and that results in an increased susceptibility to infectious agents (e.g. influenza) that would be fought off by younger individuals but can prove fatal in those elderly who are not properly vaccinated. I doubt many less developed countries have the health care systems present in the wealthier countries that contribute to a small extent to extending "natural" lives. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 13:33:33 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:33:33 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <20070328103951.GV1512@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> <20070328103951.GV1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:51:59PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > A simple program which counts to itself > > What does that mean? Would main(){int i;for(i=0;1;i++);} qualify as a > "simple program which counts to itself"? Or does it have to be > a machine vision package, and a robotic arm operating the abacus? > I can't parse the "to itself" requirement. > I remind you of what you said earlier about counting: No, of course. Until something or someone who can read the bead arrangment > comes along, and reads the number. The counting process is an abstract > measurement upon a particular physical system configuration. In order > to do that, you need a) an appropriate physical system b) appropriate > configuration c) an agent capable of that measurement. Of course, in > some cases you can have all three in the same entity. Would your counting program above satisfy requirement (c) by itself? If so, why wouldn't the abacus not also satisfy requirement (c) in the absence of an external interpreter? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Mar 28 14:40:11 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:11 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: References: <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> <20070328103951.GV1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070328144011.GE1512@leitl.org> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:33:33PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > to do that, you need a) an appropriate physical system b) > appropriate > configuration c) an agent capable of that measurement. Of course, > in > some cases you can have all three in the same entity. > > Would your counting program above satisfy requirement (c) by itself? No, it is merely a) and b), it doesn't contain any logic for an agent. You need a measurement (a comparison) and an alternate behaviour, caused by two different measurements. For instance, an oscillator driving a counter driving a comparator driving a bomb detonator would qualify. (And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.') > If so, why wouldn't the abacus not also satisfy requirement (c) in the > absence of an external interpreter? Because the program so far does not meet such a criterion. The unobserved system abacus + illiterate human is no different. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 28 15:25:03 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:25:03 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com> <02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <033201c7714d$95bbecd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 3/27/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > If taken to the limit, then this particular 50/50 example would mean to me > > that one state would be computed, then the next looked up, then the next > > computed and so on. Just as "being a zombie for 1 hour" and then "being > > completely conscious for 1 hour" can alternate meaningfully, then so can > > each, what?, billionth of a second. > > By 50/50 I don't mean that half the frames of the simulation are computed > and half looked up, but that half the *board* (or half your brain) is > computed (or biological) and half looked up (or electronic). Oh, that's right. I forgot. Your case is the more challenging and interesting. > This 50/50 situation could continue frame after frame for hours. I suppose > it isn't impossible that the subject's consciousness is rapidly flickering > during this interval, but it seems a very ad hoc theory to me. Could you > calculate or measure the frequency of the flickering? When you write "I suppose that it isn't impossible that the subject's consciousness is rapidly flickering during this interval", you are perhaps referring to the subjective quality of the experience. To the degree that you are so referring, I don't look at it quite in the same way. There would, to me, be absolutely no perception of any flickering, or of anything unusual at all. It's just that the objective *amount* of consciousness going on there inside the system must (if all my hypotheses are right) be diminished by some fraction. > And what about the fact that, however short the conscious phase > is, it is still occurring in the setting of half the board being looked up? Yes. Recalling that our subjective impression of a "unified consciousness" is an illusion, a myth that our brains generate because the resulting organic system integrity has been important for survival evolution (recall the way that split-brain patients do and say almost anything to preserve the total integrity), then either pain or pleasure, or consciousness---again seen from the outside---are occuring in only some places on the board as you say. I do admit to this being somewhat ad hoc. But as I mentioned before, I have felt forced to this position by a lack of alternatives. On the one hand, I think it's too unsatisfactory to think that sets of frozen frames, or rocks, or frames (states) not causally connected, can be conscious. (I should also hasten to point out that however unclear we may be about what we mean by that, i.e., by "conscious", it is *perfectly* clear what choices lie before us in the real world: for example, we sacrifice trees and mountains readily on moral grounds rather than harming or killing "sentient" entities.) And on the other hand, it seems quite inescapable that conscious robots could, and shortly will exist, and that it will be possible to take such a program and single-step through its deterministic execution. And that such a program---either perhaps suffering horribly or gaining a great deal of satisfaction---compels us to make a moral choice again: do we sacrifice a mountain (composed of innumerable rocks) by, say, converting it to photons radiating in all directions, or do we sacrifice entities like ourselves that we so strongly believe have feelings? So that's why I adopt this apparently "ad hoc" position. Lee From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 28 15:34:32 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:34:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: References: <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/28/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > > Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, then self-aware > computations must be lurking all around us in noise, perhaps in > > > elaborate virtual worlds, but never able to interact in any way with the > substrate of their implementation. The only way to avoid > > > this strange idea is to say that computations can't be self-aware. > > < > > > > I'm surprised---aren't you basically a functionalist who supposes > > that (shortly in the future) we must expect certain robots whose > > minds consist only in the execution of computer programs to be > > fully conscious? > > Yes, that's what I think is most likely to happen, but the metaphysical > sequelae of this idea, even though they lack empirically testable > consequences, are still pretty weird. For example, if any computation could > be hiding in noise, then our world could be a simulation, perhaps an > infinitely nested one, as a result of all possible computations being run. > On the other hand, if the anti-computationalists such as Searle and Penrose > are correct, there is a real physical world, rocks don't think even > surreptitiously, and only the very special collections of matter inside > skulls can give rise to consciousness. A scenario from a place far, far away, where the Natural Numbers, the counting numbers {1, 2, 3...} are the norm because -- it's only natural. Mr. S: "Observe the weird behavior of quantities. You can usually add one or remove one and quantity changes as expected, but when you get down to the smallest of quantities and remove one, then suddenly it's like there's no quantity at all. It's not that the quantity continues to get smaller, but rather it just stops being a quantity. I know it's not of any practical significance, but it sure is weird if you think about it." Mr. L: "It may seem weird, but it's simply the way things are. Look, you can modify quantities by ones, twos, or any amount you choose, and observe, as you apply this function to smaller and smaller quantities, there is a regular and predictable increase in the probability that the the quantity will be no quantity at all. It may look weird, but it's simple reality." Mr. J from some strange land: "You know, guys, where I come from, we've extended your concept of "quantity" so we can reckon even lower than your "quantities." We even include a continuous range of "quantity" *between* each of your numbers. It's actually simpler, ontologically, than your thinking because we don't consider the existence of quantity, no-quantity, or gaps between quantities -- our concept is smoother and more extensible -- but it's true it has relatively little to do with your everyday experience of counting stuff." - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 28 15:39:22 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:39:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <020901c76f4c$498c7d50$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703270520i4f4e0581udcfbbfde711aa8b4@mail.gmail.com> <02f701c7707e$eefd33f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <033f01c7714f$b4930ec0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes (note the great word choices here!) > On 3/28/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Similarly, if computations can be self-aware, then self-aware > > > computations must be lurking all around us in noise, perhaps in > > > elaborate virtual worlds, but never able to interact in any way > > > with the substrate of their implementation. The only way to avoid > > > this strange idea is to say that computations can't be self-aware. > > > > I'm surprised---aren't you basically a functionalist who supposes > > that (shortly in the future) we must expect certain robots whose > > minds consist only in the execution of computer programs to be > > fully conscious? > > Yes, that's what I think is most likely to happen, but the metaphysical > sequelae of this idea, even though they lack empirically testable > consequences, are still pretty weird. Yes they are. And nice word there. > For example, if any computation could be hiding in noise, then our > world could be a simulation, perhaps an infinitely nested one, as a > result of all possible computations being run. I sort of reject this axiomatically. Would crushing rocks become a moral question? Is my life as an organic being only .000000001% of my existence in this room, and that the chair, table, and keyboard, etc., are where most of my compute time takes place? I think that that should be thrown out forthwith. > On the other hand, if the anti-computationalists such as Searle and > Penrose are correct, there is a real physical world, rocks don't think > even surreptitiously, and only the very special collections of matter > inside skulls can give rise to consciousness. I would agree with them that consciousness was hard for evolution to develop, and that we should probably stay away from really believing in universal dovetailers, conscious rocks, and so on. But Penrose and Searle appear to be completely wrong on other grounds. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed Mar 28 15:53:07 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:53:07 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant References: <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <031601c770d3$8ee71df0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <035501c77151$d092cdc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > [Restoring some relevant context] > ... *all* observation is indirect (we have no simple direct unbiased > access to reality, because we're embedded in it)... > >> Different conventions, I guess. > > Clearly more than conventions, as I have described, and as you likely > know since you and I have gone around around this loop more than once. Actually, I don't "know" that, sorry. And it is not just with you that I have noticed this evidently unpenetrable chasm separating those who see sense-impressions from those who see objects. Kant wrote endlessly about this, insisting that although it was very complicated, we do see objects. But I may even be wrong about Kant; yet it's pretty certain that people differ wildly here. Or have I mischaracterized your view here? >>To me, objects are seen by >> someone or something, and that's all. To you, perhaps that's >> just an everyday abbreviation for "the photons bouncing off >> the car are seen", and in turn, that is probably shorthand for >> something even more indirect that involves more truths about >> the seer (such as nerve endings or retinas). > > It's significant that you accept that there can be distortion in the > sensory channels but fail to accept--or even consider--that when I say > fnord "we have no simple direct unbiased > access to reality, because we're embedded in it," fnord I mean that > these biases run throughout the entire system that you consider you. > It's as if that key statement (which you omitted from your redaction) > didn't fit your reality so it had no meaning for you. The reason that I oppose your statement "we have no simple direct unbiased access to reality" is not because I'm unaware of how complex certain biases (which really do exist) can be, and am unaware of the immense causal chain leading from outside to various parts of the brain. No, it's because your account---and all the people who agree with you---seems to invoke a Cartesian theatre. I will regard myself, for example, as the entire system that sees an object, and not as some much smaller end process that is deeply hidden somewhere in the brain. (And for anyone else reading, this "seeing an object" that I do is to be taken as a completely objective statement, such as "the machine received the bit string making up the .gif file".) >> As Sunny Auyang wrote in her great physics/philosophy >> book "How Is Quantum Field Theory Possible", >> >> "I have never seen a sense impression in my life." > > She makes a valid point; there is no such privileged point of view > within the system. But the system known as Sunny Auyang has certainly > processed many sense impressions. Yes, I agree with that, and thanks for your answer about references being direct. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Mar 28 16:17:49 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:17:49 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] accelerating evolution? Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070328111514.0238be70@satx.rr.com> http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm ---------- Human evolution, radically reappraised March 26, 2007 Human evolution has been speeding up tremendously, a new study contends [etc] From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 28 16:09:32 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:09:32 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <035501c77151$d092cdc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <031601c770d3$8ee71df0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <035501c77151$d092cdc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > No, it's because your account---and all the people who agree > with you---seems to invoke a Cartesian theatre. Lee, I am truly shocked and awed. I've been arguing against the Cartesian Theater in its many disguises in so many ways for so many years that I am truly at a loss with you. - Jef From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 28 16:38:42 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:38:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] A bigger Nit (was Fragmentation of computations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <810498.76722.qm@web37215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- BillK wrote: >To pick a bigger nit, I understood that the sensory >deprivaton experiments showed that a human brain >without stimulation rapidly descends into chaos that >can hardly be called consciousness. Just curious but if deprivaton experiments show that a human brain without stimulation rapidly descends into chaos, what happens when a human brain has an exceeding amount of stimulating sensory experiences? >I suspect also that as the stimulation from outside >is what causes brain pathways to grow and change, >that over time there would be severe physical changes >in the brain. I can imagine how a prisoner that is kept in a cell for 30 days in the dark or a war prisoner could eventually lean towards having permanent severe physical changes in the brain by descending into chaos. Couldn't someone that receives too much stimulation also descend into chaos? With an exceeding amount of growth and change comes the opposite extreme of chaos. In both instances, don't these brain pathways grow and change so that they are no longer recognizable? If so, in both instances, couldn't the severe physical changes in the brain lead to a phenomenon? On one hand that leads to phenomenon that has been verified such as schizophrenia or insanity yet on the other hand i'm not really clear what phenomenons may occur? I can't imagine that brain pathways that grow and change, that lead to physical changes in the brain simply lead to intelligence or knowledge, there must be other phenomenon that can occur? Just thinking out loud. Anna:) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 28 17:14:02 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:14:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War Is Easy To Explain - Peace is Not In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070312151502.03f19fd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <045b01c76519$73d7aa90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <050501c765f8$62ef8e70$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/14/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > ... the point is not that frequency of violence is a function of > population size, but that evolutionary and developmental processes > that have contributed to larger sustainable systems of human > organization tend to exploit principles of cooperative advantage, > which are antithetical to violent behavior. Steven Pinker's recent presentation on A History of Violence at the TED conference (recently published but locked behind the gates of New Republic magazine) is now available at Edge.org. 'This doctrine, "the idea that humans are peaceable by nature and corrupted by modern institutions?pops up frequently in the writing of public intellectuals like Jos? Ortega y Gasset ("War is not an instinct but an invention"), Stephen Jay Gould ("Homo sapiens is not an evil or destructive species"), and Ashley Montagu ("Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood")," he writes. "But, now that social scientists have started to count bodies in different historical periods, they have discovered that the romantic theory gets it backward: Far from causing us to become more violent, something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler.' - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Wed Mar 28 18:03:19 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:03:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] A bigger Nit (was Fragmentation of computations) In-Reply-To: <810498.76722.qm@web37215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <810498.76722.qm@web37215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Anna Taylor wrote: > Just curious but if deprivaton experiments show that a > human brain without stimulation rapidly descends into > chaos, what happens when a human brain has an > exceeding amount of stimulating sensory experiences? In roughly simplified general terms, the organism will try to maintain homeostasis. Humans deprived of cognitive stimulus report that their brains seem to begin "manufacturing" additional subjective experience as in hallucinating or dreaming. We might also expect a tendency for the system to adjust its set point lower over time. In the case of excessive stimulus, the system will tend to process the stimulus as effectively as it can through its normal channels, with the likely result that those channels will become exhausted and shut down, leading to altered perceptions of a different sort and likelihood that the larger system will tend to eventually become exhausted and shut down (go to sleep.) More interesting is the tendency for such systems, when exposed to *moderately* high levels of stress, to adapt within their capability to do so and become stronger in response to similar sorts of stress in the future. - Jef From extropy at unreasonable.com Fri Mar 30 02:01:50 2007 From: extropy at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:01:50 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Extropian party on April 21 Message-ID: <200703300105.l2U15ES64182@unreasonable.com> Another party coming up. If you are going to be in the Boston area, you're welcome to attend. There's crash-space here, if you need it. You may be able to get a ride from NYC or other parts south; ask me if you need assist. My house. Hudson, New Hampshire. A couple miles from the MA border and the Nashua malls. Roughly 20 minutes north of Rt. 128. Saturday, April 21. 2 PM until the last person not me leaves. OK to arrive late if you have other commitments; most everyone will still be here. Anyone on this list is specifically invited. If you have someone else in mind, run it by me. It will probably be okay, whether you're able to come or not. I also invite friends-of-extropy, such as sf writers, nano, LP, MIT, Alcor types. Bring to augment existing: food, drink; musical instruments; interesting stuff to show people. We'll order Chinese food at some point; bring ten bucks or so for your share. If you're not around but coming to town in the future, let us know. I can probably round up some folks for dinner. RSVP. -- David. lubkin at unreasonable.com From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 22:09:20 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:09:20 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looks like Exi-chat is back online! Message-ID: Test From bret at bonfireproductions.com Thu Mar 29 14:06:10 2007 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:06:10 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] accelerating evolution? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070328111514.0238be70@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070328111514.0238be70@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <95B8CF7F-A557-4294-AFDE-22CC533576FC@bonfireproductions.com> Yes - Humanity is a process, not a product. Next they need to include that some of our modern disorders, such as migraines and multiple sclerosis, are a part of that change, that process. It's nice that this is being affirmed. Take us down a notch in a way, I think. Make us a little more introspective. Cheers, Bret Kulakovich www.bretorium.com On Mar 28, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm > > ---------- > Human evolution, radically reappraised > > March 26, 2007 > > Human evolution has been speeding up tremendously, a new study > contends [etc] > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 14:07:06 2007 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:07:06 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> References: <8d71341e0703251631q7920dd51y54439b8d91d0054e@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:04:15PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > ### Do prime numbers exist? I have never seen one. What would it mean > > Some animals can count, but only people (as far as we know) do primes. > > > to "observe" a prime number, or indeed any mathematically describable > > structure? > > You can't. They don't exist, but in people's heads, and in hardware > derived from people's heads. ### What does it mean "not to exist" for a number? Does the number 2 not exist? If it doesn't exist, is it equal to nothing? Do chickens exist? If chickens exist, how do we know they do, while the number 2 doesn't? How come numbers "exist" in silicon, or gray matter but not in the number of chickens? ----------------------------------- > > Neither plasma nor interstellar ice grains can count. It takes people > or computers to do that. ### Some mathematical predictions of quantum theory have been confirmed to the 7th or 9th (?) significant digit. Not only does plasma count, it counts a lot. Rafal From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 12:01:26 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:01:26 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations In-Reply-To: <033201c7714d$95bbecd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com> <02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <033201c7714d$95bbecd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 3/29/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > By 50/50 I don't mean that half the frames of the simulation are computed > > and half looked up, but that half the *board* (or half your brain) is > > computed (or biological) and half looked up (or electronic). > > Oh, that's right. I forgot. Your case is the more challenging and > interesting. > > > This 50/50 situation could continue frame after frame for hours. I > suppose > > it isn't impossible that the subject's consciousness is rapidly > flickering > > during this interval, but it seems a very ad hoc theory to me. Could you > > calculate or measure the frequency of the flickering? > > When you write "I suppose that it isn't impossible that the subject's > consciousness is rapidly flickering during this interval", you are > perhaps referring to the subjective quality of the experience. To the > degree that you are so referring, I don't look at it quite in the same > way. There would, to me, be absolutely no perception of any > flickering, or of anything unusual at all. It's just that the objective > *amount* of consciousness going on there inside the system must > (if all my hypotheses are right) be diminished by some fraction. Yes, it would be rather as if I were dead every other second: I wouldn't notice anything, but my consciousness per unit time would be halved. Actually, I don't know if this would be such a bad thing, if zombie me didn't do anything I wouldn't do during the dead periods. Suppose I were offered a 10% salary increase if I volunteered to be dead half the time. If I took it up, I would only be able to really enjoy 55% of my current salary; on the other hand, I would *think* I was enjoying 110% of my current salary, at the cost of only a twinge of discomfort from knowing what was really going on. Should I take up the offer? I can think of a response to the "fading qualia" argument I have cited which does not require flickering. In some cases of cortical blindness in which the visual cortex is damaged but the rest of the visual pathways are intact, patients insist that they are not blind and come up with explanations as to why they fall over and walk into things, eg. they accuse people of putting obstacles in their way while their back is turned. This isn't just denial because it is specific to cortical lesions, not blindness due to other reasons. If these patients had advanced cyborg implants they could presumably convince the world, and be convinced themselves, that their visual perception had not suffered when in fact they can't see a thing. Perhaps gradual cyborgisation of the brain would lead to a similar, gradual fading of thoughts and perceptions; the external observer would not notice any change and the subject would not notice any change either, until he was dead, replaced by a zombie. The analogy could also be applied to gradual replacement with looked up components. Having said this, I still think the simplest explanation consistent with all the facts is that what you call non-causally connected states are as conscious as the causally connected ones. > And what about the fact that, however short the conscious phase > > is, it is still occurring in the setting of half the board being looked > up? > > Yes. Recalling that our subjective impression of a "unified > consciousness" > is an illusion, a myth that our brains generate because the resulting > organic system integrity has been important for survival evolution (recall > the way that split-brain patients do and say almost anything to preserve > the total integrity), then either pain or pleasure, or > consciousness---again > seen from the outside---are occuring in only some places on the board > as you say. > > I do admit to this being somewhat ad hoc. But as I mentioned before, > I have felt forced to this position by a lack of alternatives. On the one > hand, I think it's too unsatisfactory to think that sets of frozen frames, > or rocks, or frames (states) not causally connected, can be conscious. > (I should also hasten to point out that however unclear we may be > about what we mean by that, i.e., by "conscious", it is *perfectly* > clear what choices lie before us in the real world: for example, we > sacrifice trees and mountains readily on moral grounds rather than > harming or killing "sentient" entities.) You can't harm the consciousness in a rock by crushing the rock, because the whole idea is that it does not depend on any particular configuration of matter. In the final analysis, the consciousness is entirely contained in the not-actually-realized table mapping arbitrary physical states to computational states (in order to realize it, we would have to build and program a computer with the consciousness: the rock is superfluous to this process). Thus, this rock-is-conscious idea is another way of saying that all conscious computations are realized merely by virtue of their status as platonic objects. Strange though it may seem, it is consistent with the basic idea of functionalism, which is that consciousness resides in the form, not the substance. And on the other hand, it seems quite inescapable that conscious > robots could, and shortly will exist, and that it will be possible to > take such a program and single-step through its deterministic > execution. And that such a program---either perhaps suffering > horribly or gaining a great deal of satisfaction---compels us to make > a moral choice again: do we sacrifice a mountain (composed of > innumerable rocks) by, say, converting it to photons radiating > in all directions, or do we sacrifice entities like ourselves that we > so strongly believe have feelings? > > So that's why I adopt this apparently "ad hoc" position. > > Lee > Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin at kevinfreels.com Wed Mar 28 18:59:16 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:59:16 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] accelerating evolution? Message-ID: <20070328115916.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.d8845247bb.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 18:53:07 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:53:07 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] A bigger Nit (was Fragmentation of computations) In-Reply-To: <810498.76722.qm@web37215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <810498.76722.qm@web37215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I will only comment briefly on this -- from personal experience. I have been in an isolation tank (once long ago) for an hour or so. I found it neither disconcerting nor uncomfortable. How one would deal with it on an ongoing basis (weeks or months) is open to debate. I think I would be perfectly content with a large volume of input and perhaps a small volume of output (though I love to talk with people, I may not absolutely require extensive interaction with them, so whether output were received and processed may be much less important than whether I personally believed I had some insight.) I suspect however that I am not "normal" and that for most people being confined in a noncommunicative state for extended periods might not be considered a good situation. [1] Robert 1. Given that humans tend to be social animals, one would have to question how isolation could not be considered a "cruel and unusual punishment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 03:47:55 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:47:55 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <20070328144011.GE1512@leitl.org> References: <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> <20070328103951.GV1512@leitl.org> <20070328144011.GE1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/29/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 11:33:33PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > to do that, you need a) an appropriate physical system b) > > appropriate > > configuration c) an agent capable of that measurement. Of course, > > in > > some cases you can have all three in the same entity. > > > > Would your counting program above satisfy requirement (c) by itself? > > No, it is merely a) and b), it doesn't contain any logic for an agent. > You need a measurement (a comparison) and an alternate behaviour, > caused by two different measurements. For instance, an oscillator > driving a counter driving a comparator driving a bomb detonator would > qualify. Are you saying real world consequences are required, or would doing all this in software, in a simulated environment without external input, suffice? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 03:41:54 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:41:54 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Pilgrimage to Karbala Message-ID: I tend to be proud of the fact that I have visited many countries, have even lived outside of the U.S. for extended periods, am more aware of international situations than the average individual from a more developed country, etc. But I had my eyes opened tonight while watching a PBS special "Pilgrimage to Karbala" [1] which was a documentary about Iranian Shiites [2] undertaking the journey to the city of Karbala [3] in Iraq in 2006. I am more convinced than ever, having watched this, that the best path with respect to "faith based vectors" is to simply disengage from them. To correct these perceptions requires a fundamental rewiring of individual neural networks and an imposed external perspective seems unlikely to achieve this (when the neural networks are as deep as childhood indoctrination). Furthermore when one has a culture which already has in place concepts of "freedom" which are 1300+ years old one is unlikely to be able to replace them with concepts 300 or 400 years old. Indeed, it appears to me that Bush's agenda for "freedom" is running directly into an installed cultural dictate with respect to what "freedom" really is (based on Imam Hussein's struggle). I doubt that external influences will ever be able to "mandate" a correction to that [4]. Robert 1. http://www.pbs.org/previews/wa-karbala/ 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiites 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbala 4. This is coming from a person who supported freeing Afghanistan from the Taliban and at least initially supported freeing Iraq from the reign of Saddam Hussein. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Wed Mar 28 21:58:35 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:58:35 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d71341e0703281458s3cd1f04es95286837698493b8@mail.gmail.com> On 3/27/07, Amara Graps wrote: > > I wonder what the the anti-aging scientists can learn from the Bowhead > whales? I don't buy the 'stress' argument, given below; it should > shorten the ages, instead. There must be another key to their long life. > The two kinds of mammals I previously knew of with anomalously long lifespans are bats and humans, and in both cases the reason is slow reproduction creating a selection pressure for long life. Do bowhead whales reproduce unusually slowly for some reason? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Mar 30 19:00:57 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:00:57 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] binaries have planets too Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070330135903.02326dd8@satx.rr.com> Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. News Release: 2007-036 March 29, 2007 NASA Telescope Finds Planets Thrive Around Stellar Twins The double sunset that Luke Skywalker gazed upon in the film "Star Wars" [[not to mention a zillion sf covers since the dawn of time]] might not be a fantasy. Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have observed that planetary systems - dusty disks of asteroids, comets and possibly planets - are at least as abundant in twin-star systems as they are in those, like our own, with only one star. Since more than half of all stars are twins, or binaries, the finding suggests the universe is packed with planets that have two suns. Sunsets on some of those worlds would resemble the ones on Luke Skywalker's planet, Tatooine, where two fiery balls dip below the horizon one by one. "There appears to be no bias against having planetary system formation in binary systems," said David Trilling of the University of Arizona, Tucson, lead author of a new paper about the research appearing in the April 1 issue of the Astrophysical Journal. "There could be countless planets out there with two or more suns." Previously, astronomers knew that planets could form in exceptionally wide binary systems, in which stars are 1,000 times farther apart than the distance between Earth and the sun, or 1,000 astronomical units. Of the approximately 200 planets discovered so far outside our solar system, about 50 orbit one member of a wide stellar duo. The new Spitzer study focuses on binary stars that are a bit more snug, with separation distances between zero and 500 astronomical units. Until now, not much was known about whether the close proximity of stars like these might affect the growth of planets. Standard planet-hunting techniques generally don't work well with these stars, but, in 2005, a NASA-funded astronomer found evidence for a planet candidate in one such multiple-star system http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release05-115 Trilling and his colleagues used Spitzer's infrared, heat- seeking eyes to look not for planets, but for dusty disks in double-star systems. These so-called debris disks are made up of asteroid-like bits of leftover rock that never made it into rocky planets. Their presence indicates that the process of building planets has occurred around a star, or stars, possibly resulting in intact, mature planets. In the most comprehensive survey of its kind, the team looked for disks in 69 binary systems between about 50 and 200 light- years away from Earth. All of the stars are somewhat younger and more massive than our middle-aged sun. The data show that about 40 percent of the systems had disks, which is a bit higher than the frequency for a comparable sample of single stars. This means that planetary systems are at least as common around binary stars as they are around single stars. In addition, the astronomers were shocked to find that disks were even more frequent (about 60 percent) around the tightest binaries in the study. These coziest of stellar companions are between zero and three astronomical units apart. Spitzer detected disks orbiting both members of the star pairs, rather than just one. Extra-tight star systems like these are where planets, if they are present, would experience Tatooine-like sunsets. "We were very surprised to find that the tight group had more disks," said Trilling. "This could mean that planet formation favors tight binaries over single stars, but it could also mean tight binaries are just dustier. Future observations should provide a better answer." The Spitzer data also reveal that not all binary systems are friendly places for planets to form. The telescope detected far fewer disks altogether in intermediately spaced binary systems, between three to 50 astronomical units apart. This implies that stars may have to be either very close to each other, or fairly far apart, for planets to arise. "For a planet in a binary system, location is everything," said co-author Karl Stapelfeldt of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Binary systems were largely ignored before," added Trilling. "They are more difficult to study, but they might be the most common sites for planet formation in our galaxy." Other authors on the paper include: John Stansberry, George Rieke and Kate Su of the University of Arizona; Richard Gray of the Appalachian State University, Boone, N.C.; Chris Corbally of the Vatican Observatory, Tucson; Geoff Bryden, Andy Boden and Charles Beichman of JPL; and Christine Chen of the National Optical Astronomical Observatory, Tucson. JPL manages Spitzer for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. Science operations are conducted at the Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology, also in Pasadena. The multiband imaging photometer for Spitzer was built by Ball Aerospace Corporation, Boulder, Colo.; the University of Arizona; and Boeing North American, Canoga Park, Calif. Co-author Rieke is the principal investigator. For more information and graphics, visit: www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media and http://www.nasa.gov/spitzer More information about extrasolar planets and NASA's planet- finding program is at: http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov From robert.bradbury at gmail.com Fri Mar 30 19:26:00 2007 From: robert.bradbury at gmail.com (Robert Bradbury) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:26:00 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Bowhead Whales May be the World's Oldest Mammals In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0703281458s3cd1f04es95286837698493b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0703281458s3cd1f04es95286837698493b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/28/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > > > The two kinds of mammals I previously knew of with anomalously long > lifespans are bats and humans, and in both cases the reason is slow > reproduction creating a selection pressure for long life. Do bowhead whales > reproduce unusually slowly for some reason? To the best of my knowledge all long-lived mammals tend to be K-selected (long pregnancy periods, long nurture periods). But it may be difficult to disentagle this from the survival advantages of social groups and intelligence which are semi-independent vectors enabling the evolution of longevity. Fascinating that I'm sitting here staring a report (Hakeem, AY et al 2006) on NMR studies of African elephants and they are citing "an unusually large and convoluted hippocampus compared to primates and especially to cetaceans". Given a several hundred year history of slaughtering elephants, I question whether humans should ever enable a direct elephant to independent "moral" robot link. Slow reproduction and fewer offspring go hand-in-hand with K-selection which is associated with putting more resources into single offspring because the individual hazard function is lower. For R-selected species the hazard function is higher, esp. for uneducated young'ns, so its a case of simply crank em out and let the chips fall where they may. Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 30 19:44:38 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:44:38 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d71341e0703251946t2e8e40dfv2216849ad0cea509@mail.gmail.com> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <7641ddc60703290707h6ba15c37q82bff4192c32a17f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070330194438.GR1512@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:07:06AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### What does it mean "not to exist" for a number? Does the number 2 > not exist? If it doesn't exist, is it equal to nothing? A number is an abstraction, a measurement upon a physical system/it's configuration. It takes a) a physical system b) an appropriate configuration c) a system doing the measurement (an observer) a) + b) are cheap, but c) is not. Notice that human-derived systems are causally entangled to observers it took evolution some 4 gigayears to build. That's a lot of work. Bootstrapping infoprocessing systems doesn't come cheap. > Do chickens exist? If chickens exist, how do we know they do, while > the number 2 doesn't? Did the number 0x0bd11a0bb188f291956549705169a996110841d4 exist? Until a few seconds ago (until I made it) it didn't. Now it exists in multiple copies, in multiple places. When these places are gone, so will be this number. Until someone/something creates it again. > How come numbers "exist" in silicon, or gray matter but not in the > number of chickens? Chickens can count a bit, actually. > ### Some mathematical predictions of quantum theory have been > confirmed to the 7th or 9th (?) significant digit. Not only does > plasma count, it counts a lot. Plasma doesn't do measurements. People do. Whatever plasma does, it's not associated with pigment marks on dead tree, or pixels on a display. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 30 19:46:05 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 21:46:05 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Looks like Exi-chat is back online! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070330194605.GS1512@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 11:09:20PM +0100, BillK wrote: > Test The DNS servers had a bit of a hiccup. These internets have sure a case of clogged pipes pretty often. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Fri Mar 30 20:17:07 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:17:07 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: References: <7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com> <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> <20070328103951.GV1512@leitl.org> <20070328144011.GE1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070330201707.GU1512@leitl.org> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:47:55PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Are you saying real world consequences are required, or would doing > all this in software, in a simulated environment without external > input, suffice? No, behaviour is independent of substrate. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 31 13:21:51 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:21:51 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] accelerating evolution? In-Reply-To: <20070328115916.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.d8845247bb.wbe@email.secureserver.net> References: <20070328115916.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.d8845247bb.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: On 3/29/07, kevin at kevinfreels.com wrote: I tend to agree. In fact, I think that the one key evolved characteristic of > human beings that gave us an edge over all other hominids is an ability to > rapidly evolve. This is the thing that has allowed us to live through major > environmental changes while other hominids never quite made it. Our mind is > simply a part of that flexibility and adaptability. One day I hope to find > time to follow up on this idea further. > Do you think this would be relevant today? For example, traditional evolution would have seen humans grow hairier if the climate grew colder, but clothing and heating would almost completely negate hairiness and other genetic changes as fitness characteristics. And as discussed recently on this list, even such factors as wealth and intelligence don't seem to lead to more offspring in modern societies. It seems that aside from genetic drift we are mostly stuck with the genes we now have, unless we set about re-engineering them ourselves. That would certainly constitute accelerated evolution, but it won't be the traditional random mutation and natural selection model. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 31 13:39:15 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:39:15 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: <20070330201707.GU1512@leitl.org> References: <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> <20070328103951.GV1512@leitl.org> <20070328144011.GE1512@leitl.org> <20070330201707.GU1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 3/31/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:47:55PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Are you saying real world consequences are required, or would doing > > all this in software, in a simulated environment without external > > input, suffice? > > No, behaviour is independent of substrate. OK, so you take the whole simulation (with an agent that can count) and run it on a system that is Turing-equivalent (I used an abacus above; a counter machine is Turing-equivalent and resembles an abacus). This running can take one of three forms: (a) the TM designer physically manipulates the machine; (b) the TM designer writes out a program and has an ignorant person who can follow instructions manipulate the machine; (c) the wind happens to manipulate the machine in the same way as the human would have. Does the program run and counting occur in each case? Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sat Mar 31 15:56:18 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:56:18 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Reality 2.0: A new world in the making Message-ID: <470a3c520703310856o65d66dc8g3b2a5a0577fe2e1@mail.gmail.com> New forthcoming release of well known and very popular game: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/reality_20_a_new_world_in_the_making/ From eugen at leitl.org Sat Mar 31 17:02:12 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:02:12 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant In-Reply-To: References: <20070327203801.GA1512@leitl.org> <20070328084252.GL1512@leitl.org> <20070328103951.GV1512@leitl.org> <20070328144011.GE1512@leitl.org> <20070330201707.GU1512@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070331170212.GE9439@leitl.org> On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:39:15PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > OK, so you take the whole simulation (with an agent that can count) > and run it on a system that is Turing-equivalent (I used an abacus > above; a counter machine is Turing-equivalent and resembles an > abacus). This running can take one of three forms: (a) the TM designer > physically manipulates the machine; (b) the TM designer writes out a > program and has an ignorant person who can follow instructions > manipulate the machine; (c) the wind happens to manipulate the machine > in the same way as the human would have. Does the program run and > counting occur in each case? Sorry, as long as you won't touch the Hash Life scenario (observer + environment implemented in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashlife which is Turing complete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life), no dice. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri Mar 30 14:46:02 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:46:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Fragmentation of computations References: <20070321131827.GW1512@leitl.org> <024d01c76fca$775d2b20$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703261036i7afd4ed3n6d22a5ab2c34d38b@mail.gmail.com> <20070326191605.GN1512@leitl.org> <8d71341e0703261317ncce5380m90b9c17faf6141d3@mail.gmail.com> <026601c76ffe$85612120$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0703262047p1794a517vc81774c49471eb13@mail.gmail.com> <02a901c77078$879c1c90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <033201c7714d$95bbecd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <004701c772fe$318e7db0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > > When you write "I suppose that it isn't impossible that the subject's > > consciousness is rapidly flickering during this interval", you are > > perhaps referring to the subjective quality of the experience. To the > > degree that you are so referring, I don't look at it quite in the same > > way. There would, to me, be absolutely no perception of any > > flickering, or of anything unusual at all. It's just that the objective > > *amount* of consciousness going on there inside the system must > > (if all my hypotheses are right) be diminished by some fraction. > > Yes, it would be rather as if I were dead every other second: I wouldn't > notice anything, but my consciousness per unit time would be halved. > Actually, I don't know if this would be such a bad thing, if zombie me > didn't do anything I wouldn't do during the dead periods. Suppose I were > offered a 10% salary increase if I volunteered to be dead half the time. > If I took it up, I would only be able to really enjoy 55% of my current > salary; on the other hand, I would *think* I was enjoying 110% of my > current salary, at the cost of only a twinge of discomfort from knowing > what was really going on. Should I take up the offer? This is an example, quite interesting itself, where the language of "benefit" clarifies the situation. One very likely shouldn't live at all if one does not have a life worth living. Likewise, the 10% increase in salary will deliver some amount of benefit. So this reduces to the question of whether on the whole, given say that we exist only finitely long in one particular universe, it would be better to live twice as long (but with reduced benefits). Of course, it your example here, a ten percent increase in salary doesn't sound like much. By the way, thanks very much for the careful understanding you extended to a position that you don't really agree with. > You can't harm the consciousness in a rock by crushing the rock, > because the whole idea is that it does not depend on any particular > configuration of matter. In the final analysis, the consciousness is > entirely contained in the not-actually-realized table mapping > arbitrary physical states to computational states... > > Thus, this rock-is-conscious idea is another way of saying that all > conscious computations are realized merely by virtue of their > status as platonic objects. Strange though it may seem, it is > consistent with the basic idea of functionalism, which is that > consciousness resides in the form, not the substance. Yes, I guess that's right. Perhaps Putnam was right: functionalism if taken to extremes does lead to the entirely counter-intuitive idea that rocks and dust---and even collections of photons anywhere--- undertake all the same computations and have all the same experiences as we do. (I consider that to be surely quite wrong.) So then let me amend the question that I was asking: It seems quite inescapable that conscious robots could, and shortly will exist, and that it will be possible to take such a program and single-step through its deterministic execution. And that such a program---either perhaps suffering horribly or gaining a great deal of satisfaction---compels us to make a moral choice. But if rocks continue to be conscious whether pulverized or not, as does any system that can take on many states, (together with a fantastically loose definition of "system"), then of what special status or value are humans and animals? Is caring for another human being completely inconsequential because either saving them from grief or inflicting grief upon them doesn't change the platonic realities at all? (It's funny that in all the discussions of abstract computing, I don't recall much discussion of the repercussions in our daily lives of accepting the implications of these weird doctrines.) By clinging to the "ad hoc" causal requirement that there has to be local information flow in a local system for any of the things we value to obtain, I escape the dilemma. What do you do? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu Mar 29 07:00:11 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:00:11 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Role of Observer is not Relevant References: <02e001c7707d$848e4e10$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7641ddc60703271304s26c22025p6ac9e2484bcfcf79@mail.gmail.com><031601c770d3$8ee71df0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><035501c77151$d092cdc0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <002b01c77267$a1e0a300$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes > I've been arguing against the Cartesian Theater in its many > disguises in so many ways for so many years that I am truly > at a loss with you [for having suggested that I, Jef, am making > this kind of suggestion] Well, reconsider what you wrote earlier: > It's significant that you accept that there can be distortion in the > sensory channels but fail to accept--or even consider--that > when I say fnord "we have no simple direct unbiased access to > reality, because we're embedded in it," fnord I mean that these > biases run throughout the entire system that you consider you. In the rather philosophic discussion we are having---wondering how a person sees an object---we must say where to draw the boundary of the person. I don't think (in this discussion) it is right to draw the boundary of the person so tightly that his or her sensory channels are outside. It was only this, and your implication that the indirectness extended very very far (perhaps infinitely far), that reminded me of the Cartesian Theatre. Sorry to have perplexed you. But I guess that you will not like this either: "The entire system of a person---his higher brain functions down to his lower brain functions down to V1-V4 and even including all the structures of the eye---, that system directly sees an object. Or would you? Lee By the way, was that a test? I could see the word "fnord" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fnord . But knowing you, there was probably something even more subtle underfoot :-) Or---this would be a gas---you might have suspected that I was skimming your writing so fast that I'd miss that word!