[extropy-chat] Metaphysical construct
citta437 at aol.com
citta437 at aol.com
Fri Mar 2 15:15:35 UTC 2007
"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 <amara at amara.com>
Subject: [extropy-chat] HEADS UP: despres/frappr
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Message-ID: <p06230902c20c2eb5dd81@[23.237.66.13]>
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" <sentience at pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael
Frayn
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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" <pgptag at gmail.com>
Subject: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as a reality based religion
To: wta-talk at transhumanism.com, "ExI chat list"
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <sparkle_robot at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Transhumanism as a reality based religion
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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" <spike66 at comcast.net>
Subject: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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" <stathisp at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
<f21c22e30703011839g3d963c06qa8a84f3642dc4943 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On 3/2/07, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> 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" <sentience at pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] cryonicist living life in reverse
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <pj at pj-manney.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael
Frayn
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael
Frayn
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <pj at pj-manney.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael
Frayn
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael
Frayn
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <pj at pj-manney.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael
Frayn
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael
Frayn
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <pj at pj-manney.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael
Frayn
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] book review: The Human Touch by Michael
Frayn
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <femmechakra at yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in
reverse
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <299149.28706.qm at web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> 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" <kevinpet at gmail.com>
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 <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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 <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Critical and Positive Thinking
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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" <stathisp at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in
reverse
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
<f21c22e30703020223t779f6054v95683a87ee292437 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On 3/2/07, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:
--- Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> 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 <eugen at leitl.org>
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 <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> 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" <stathisp at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Just curious, cryonicist living life in
reverse
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID:
<f21c22e30703020316i4612826fq9c87de1f134be13 at mail.gmail.com>
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 <eugen at leitl.org> 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 <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> 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" <asa at nada.kth.se>
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] something rather than nothing
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
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.
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list