From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  1 00:08:21 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 08:08:21 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress
Message-ID: <ee50357e0705010008s218c9720y25917fa1b558c2f4@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/1/07, Thomas wrote:
<snip>
> Not completely off-topic since many of Bush's efforts have worked
> against the extropian, especially funding war at the expense of medical
> and technological progress.
>


Not true!
I have supported the proposition before that war funding vastly
increases technological and medical developments. Look at all the
stuff DARPA is funding.
WWII certainly generated a great leap forward in technology and medicine.
(The downside, of course, is that war tends to kill a lot of people).

Agreed that Bush has opposed funding some stem cell research, but that
was on religious grounds, nothing to do with the war funding.


BillK

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  1 00:24:02 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 08:24:02 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism and
	Religion in Second Life
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com>
References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0705010024t31444343gf331e879f7ef30de@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/1/07, Damien Broderick wrote:
> I wrote one 30 years ago, published finally in 1982, in which almost
> all remnant humans have withdrawn into simulations (under the lofty
> custodianship of human-AI cyborgs). I never dreamed it would take so long. :)
>

This scenario is often offered as the reason for Fermi's paradox.
<http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/05/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens.php>

This writer uses EP failings in modern man to support his thesis.

Quotes:
As a result, brains must evolve short-cuts: fitness-promoting tricks,
cons, recipes and heuristics that work, on average, under ancestrally
normal conditions. The result is that we don't seek reproductive
success directly; we seek tasty foods that have tended to promote
survival, and luscious mates who have tended to produce bright,
healthy babies. The modern result? Fast food and pornography.

Fitness-faking technology tends to evolve much faster than our
psychological resistance to it.

This is the Great Temptation for any technological species?to shape
their subjective reality to provide the cues of survival and
reproductive success without the substance.
--------------


Sounds reasonable to me.

BillK


From andrew at ceruleansystems.com  Tue May  1 00:18:45 2007
From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 00:18:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible?
In-Reply-To: <005401c78bba$b2e46940$290b4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <880958.25542.qm@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<005401c78bba$b2e46940$290b4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <A7E92465-2766-4FC5-AFB2-C2C220F4CB37@ceruleansystems.com>


On Apr 30, 2007, at 11:33 PM, John K Clark wrote:
> That said I personally don't like any thread being killed unless it is
> boring or stupid. I hope the Extropians don't become as kill thread  
> happy as
> the SL4 list when their central dogma is threatened.


Speaking entirely for myself, as best I can determine the SL4 list  
moderators don't like any thread being killed unless it is boring or  
stupid.  Or off-topic.  Interpret that how you will.

Cheers,

J. Andrew Rogers


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue May  1 00:47:03 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 00:47:03 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0705010008s218c9720y25917fa1b558c2f4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0705010008s218c9720y25917fa1b558c2f4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4636F077.1020702@mac.com>

BillK wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Thomas wrote:
> <snip>
>   
>> Not completely off-topic since many of Bush's efforts have worked
>> against the extropian, especially funding war at the expense of medical
>> and technological progress.
>>
>>     
>
>
> Not true!
> I have supported the proposition before that war funding vastly
> increases technological and medical developments. Look at all the
> stuff DARPA is funding.
>   

Show me what we got out of Iraq.  It looks to me like we just pour 
nearly a trillion dollars into sand and blood with squat to show for 
it.  The glory days of DARPA are behind it.  What do you have in mind 
that is so hot as to justify all the ill of this so-called war?
> WWII certainly generated a great leap forward in technology and medicine.
> (The downside, of course, is that war tends to kill a lot of people).
>
> Agreed that Bush has opposed funding some stem cell research, but that
> was on religious grounds, nothing to do with the war funding.
>   
The money for this contretemps had to come from somewhere.  Where?  What 
could it have bought for us instead? 

- samantha

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue May  1 00:52:02 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:52:02 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV10D45D4CBBACA524E86FA6A7430@phx.gbl>
References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com>
	<3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com>
	<059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<BAY140-DAV702CCFE52082EBF804E37A74D0@phx.gbl>
	<092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV1D42E35A3960227DB110EA74C0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704301705q78dbe029q3fec0beba63966c3@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV12E93FB0260CEEBCD15CAFA7430@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704301925j595ef657t388b0900d3d7e81@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV10D45D4CBBACA524E86FA6A7430@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30705010052k1aa88c2xb4ff668f1924f0bb@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/05/07, Heartland <velvethum at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stathis:
> >> >> >> If I-now think I've survived as a continuation of I-before,
> >> >> >> then that's what matters in survival.
>
> Heartland:
> >> That doesn't matter at all. Why should it matter? Is there an argument
> for why
> >> this should matter? If it exists, I would love to read it.
>
> Stathis:
> > Because that's how people define survival, as in not dying.
>
> That argument breaks down quite easily. What you're saying here is that if
> I think
> I-now survived, then it must be true that I-before survived and that this
> mechanism
> for determining truth (I think it is true -> it is true) is reliable just
> because
> most people use this mechanism. Let's apply this logic to something that
> has
> nothing to do with survival so that emotional attachments to our ideas
> about
> survival don't blind us to the fact that this argument doesn't work.
>
> Many centuries ago someone believed Sun revolved around Earth. Even though
> overwhelming majority of people at the time shared that belief, was it
> really true
> that all these centuries ago Sun actually revolved around the Earth? Did
> people's
> (subjective) beliefs cause Sun to revolve around Earth? Of course not, so
> the
> argument is not a reliable way of finding truth.


No, the appropriate analogy is this. Many centuries ago people believed Sun
revolved around Earth. They also believed that their faces felt warm when
they looked at the Sun. The former is an empirical belief about the world,
which scientific evidence proved wrong. The latter is just an expression of
how people feel. Even if it could be shown by science that the Sun was not
really there at all - that it was just a projection on a big screen - that
still would not have changed the fact that when you look at what *appears*
to be the Sun, your face feels warm. People might have been surprised and
even upset to learn that the Sun was an illusion, but in the end they would
have said, "Oh well, we've lived with it this long, the important thing is
that the illusion, or whatever it is, continue."

Just because I-now thinks I-before survived does not cause "I-before
> survived"
> statement to be true. In other words, I-now cannot subjectively determine
> if
> I-before survived. I-now can determine that I-before survived based on
> objective
> evidence only.
>
> The only thing that I-now can determine subjectively is I-now's survival
> (I think
> therefore I am therefore I survive) which is what I think you've been
> focusing on
> exclusively while completely ignoring I-before's fate.


Suppose it is claimed that there is some objective criterion X for death,
easily shown by medical tests to have occurred or not occurred in the
preceding 24 hours. There is no doubt that criterion X is a real physical
effect, and there is no doubt that the tests accurately detect its presence
or absence. The question is, how do we know that criterion X actually tests
for death?

Stathis:
> >> > You haven't answered yet (that I have noticed) what you would do if
> >> medical
> >> > science discovered that you didn't actually survive a situation you
> >> hitherto
> >> > believed harmless, such as falling asleep or being photographed by a
> >> traffic
> >> > camera.
>
> This question is posed in such a way that it assumes the conclusion you
> haven't
> proven yet. You said, "what you would do if...you didn't actually
> survive... ." Now
> think about it for a minute. You're asking me what I would do after I
> died. Well,
> not much because I would not exist anymore and people who don't exist are
> incapable
> of doing anything. You assume your conclusion which is that
> someone-before-being-fatally-photographed and
> someone-after-being-fatally-photographed is the same person. You have not
> shown
> that yet.


Yes I have: just as clearly as you have shown that a flat EEG means death,
despite the person actually believing that "he" has survived. I'm telling
you that when you were zapped by that camera today, you were killed, and the
person reading this is actually someone else who has only been alive for a
few hours. Can you show me any evidence that I am wrong about this?

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070501/d1819cc0/attachment.html 

From jonkc at att.net  Tue May  1 01:02:42 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 04:02:42 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future?.
References: <640411.85381.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com><BAY140-DAV10FF88DE411737188A97D7A74A0@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704240604n3a4866c2g65248cdb4c0d163d@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-DAV103A72E84429DF76917B72A7490@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704251712l2d5e98b2j19ae2b1ce0a62e62@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-DAV110E971B807C895A58914CA74F0@phx.gbl><013c01c788f3$06c458b0$f60a4e0c@MyComputer><38A94159-536C-45C8-81E5-DDA4DFE9FC25@randallsquared.com><076f01c78914$571c6b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><F2950714-099C-4700-AE5E-B37DE6DBD374@randallsquared.com><07a201c78995$38a5c970$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1A7A74FD-3240-435A-B117-6F3B0B522232@randallsquared.com><083c01c78a08$a753b1c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><E4E96CD3-43A7-4A1F-BA7A-86656BC874E2@randallsquared.com><086701c78a4b$33d7cef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070429135619.0236cb40@satx.rr.com><00ba01c78b6b$b62ccf60$dc0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070430170213.023ad358@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <03cc01c78bc8$0dd60b80$290b4e0c@MyComputer>

"Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>

Me:
>> Why does randomness and stupidity beat
>> intelligence?

You:
> In the general sense, because they had 4 billion years

It took 4 billion years because random mutation and natural selection is
incredibly STUPID! Intelligence is not stupid, that's why it's called
intelligence. There is an entire galaxy of solutions unavailable to
evolution, but not to intelligence. Every large change evolution makes
consists of lots of small changes, and every single one of those small
changes must confer an IMMEDIATE advantage to the organism; evolution just
doesn't understand the concept of one step backward two steps forward.
Imagine if you had to turn a prop airplane engine into a jet with a million
tiny changes and ever change must improve the performance of the engine, and
you had to make the changes while the engine was running. It just couldn't
be done. That's probably why evolution was never able to come up with some
apparently simple things, like a macroscopic body part that could move in
360 degrees.

And also consider the fact that the fastest signals in the brain move at
about 100 meters a second, most are far slower; the signals in a AI would
move at 300,000,000 meters a second and would have a far shorter distance to
travel.

> I thought the claim was that a perfect copy could be contrived and swapped
> in instantaneously. Nano couldn't do that.

That is true, I used the word "instantaneously" because I thought it would
make a cleaner thought experiment, but if I had said "after 5 minutes" would
it really make a cosmic difference?

  John K Clark






From jonkc at att.net  Tue May  1 01:41:37 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 04:41:37 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] META My position on the secular sin of
	censorship --Was Take a stand
References: <01a501c785e4$d96ee670$e7e18f9b@homepc>
Message-ID: <074401c78bcc$b7d1d5c0$290b4e0c@MyComputer>

Brett Paatsch Wrote about Eugen Leitl

> I would oppose your reanimation.

Eugen may or may not be right about this particular kill thread (I haven't 
followed it but I have a hunch he probably isn't right) however to say 
something like that about a fine man like Eugen tells me you must be very 
small, so small it would require an electron microscope to see you.

  John K Clark




From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue May  1 02:32:56 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 19:32:56 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism and
	Religion in Second Life
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0705010024t31444343gf331e879f7ef30de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0705010024t31444343gf331e879f7ef30de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30705010232r534dc29fn4b7e519bc56e37a3@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/05/07, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

This scenario is often offered as the reason for Fermi's paradox.
> <http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/05/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens.php
> >
>
> This writer uses EP failings in modern man to support his thesis.
>
> Quotes:
> As a result, brains must evolve short-cuts: fitness-promoting tricks,
> cons, recipes and heuristics that work, on average, under ancestrally
> normal conditions. The result is that we don't seek reproductive
> success directly; we seek tasty foods that have tended to promote
> survival, and luscious mates who have tended to produce bright,
> healthy babies. The modern result? Fast food and pornography.
>
> Fitness-faking technology tends to evolve much faster than our
> psychological resistance to it.


Yes, but evolution always comes up with a solution. Out of a zillion
civilizations there will always be some individuals who, perhaps perversely,
wish to expand and explore the universe despite the goodies available via
virtual reality without leaving home. Those individuals will tend to
populate the universe, just as a single antibiotic-resistant bacterium will
take over a petri dish.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070501/e06f49bd/attachment.html 

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  1 03:47:45 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 11:47:45 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism and
	Religion in Second Life
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30705010232r534dc29fn4b7e519bc56e37a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0705010024t31444343gf331e879f7ef30de@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30705010232r534dc29fn4b7e519bc56e37a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0705010347s2e7f6e19u2fa0fb3eb30783d9@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/1/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Yes, but evolution always comes up with a solution. Out of a zillion
> civilizations there will always be some individuals who, perhaps perversely,
> wish to expand and explore the universe despite the goodies available via
> virtual reality without leaving home. Those individuals will tend to
> populate the universe, just as a single antibiotic-resistant bacterium will
> take over a petri dish.
>


You can always hope.
Sounds like a big dose of wishful thinking to me.

The point is that evolution doesn't have sufficient time to react.
The loners will be the 'Amish' in a future society.

And in your scenario, you still have to answer the question,
'Where are they?'.  Even at sub-light speeds they should be all over
our galaxy by now.
We might be the first, or only, in our galaxy, but answering the
question means deciding between a range of unlikely choices.


BillK

From neptune at superlink.net  Tue May  1 03:28:35 2007
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 06:28:35 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress
References: <ee50357e0705010008s218c9720y25917fa1b558c2f4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003401c78bdb$79fef840$6b893cd1@pavilion>

On Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:08 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Thomas wrote:
> <snip>
> > Not completely off-topic since many of Bush's efforts have worked
> > against the extropian, especially funding war at the expense of
medical
> > and technological progress.
>
> Not true!
> I have supported the proposition before that war funding vastly
> increases technological and medical developments. Look at all the
> stuff DARPA is funding.
> WWII certainly generated a great leap forward in technology and
medicine.
> (The downside, of course, is that war tends to kill a lot of people).
>
> Agreed that Bush has opposed funding some stem cell research, but that
> was on religious grounds, nothing to do with the war funding.

To fund the war, one must use one of three possible means: taxation,
inflation, or borrowing (i.e., deficit spending).  All of these mean
less wealth for other purposes.  Now it's true that some war spending
will go to research and development and some of that might lead to
progress in various fields.  (Even so, I suspect most such R&D spending
will be on new ways for the government to hurt or kill people, and that
is probably the least extropian use I can think of.)  However, it's
merely falling for the broken window fallacy to believe that this has an
overall benefit.  In other words, the benefit must be weighed against
the cost -- and the cost is not just people being killed or injured
(though, that alone, is the most serious cost of war).

Were this not so, then you should advocate a society constantly at war.
Such as society would have, by this view, the most technological and
economic progress over any alternatives.

Regards,

Dan


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue May  1 04:32:30 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:32:30 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism and
	Religion in Second Life
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0705010347s2e7f6e19u2fa0fb3eb30783d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0705010024t31444343gf331e879f7ef30de@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30705010232r534dc29fn4b7e519bc56e37a3@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0705010347s2e7f6e19u2fa0fb3eb30783d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070501113230.GA17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 11:47:45AM +0100, BillK wrote:

> You can always hope.

Hope for what? That it happens, or that it doesn't happen?

> Sounds like a big dose of wishful thinking to me.

Evolutionary theory sounds like wishful thinking to you? Really.
 
> The point is that evolution doesn't have sufficient time to react.

An argument is missing here.

> The loners will be the 'Amish' in a future society.

The point is that these 'Amish' will inherit the universe. As
to the solipsists, well, you won't ever meet any. These self-select
into invisibility.
 
> And in your scenario, you still have to answer the question,
> 'Where are they?'.  Even at sub-light speeds they should be all over
> our galaxy by now.

You've just answered your own questions. If they're not here, they're
not anywhere. In fact, they *are* here. Look into the mirror.

> We might be the first, or only, in our galaxy, but answering the
> question means deciding between a range of unlikely choices.

No, it means that there is at least one coefficient in the Drake
equation which is pretty damn close to zero.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

From russell.wallace at gmail.com  Tue May  1 05:29:12 2007
From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:29:12 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible?
In-Reply-To: <f1d9c15f0704302200p29f68512k2a9fbb457dba0e7c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<f1d9c15f0704302200p29f68512k2a9fbb457dba0e7c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8d71341e0705010529s6a86c8f6m1b93891d758abc0d@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/1/07, Andres Colon <andres at neuralgrid.net> wrote:
>
> This is my first day on this list. I only want to say I was shocked and
> disappointed to see someone say such a thing as Brett did. Hopefully this is
> not common on this list.
>

I missed the original, having killfiled Brett a long while back, but I'm
happy to say that sort of thing isn't at all common on this list; I can't
remember the last time anyone else said anything like that. Considering the
strong emotions sometimes raised here, the standard of discussion is
generally very civilized, and I'll pause to thank the moderators for doing a
good job.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070501/23634538/attachment.html 

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue May  1 07:25:12 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 10:25:12 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism and
 Religion in Second Life
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0705010024t31444343gf331e879f7ef30de@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com>
	<470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070501102134.03ae5df0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 08:24 AM 5/1/2007 +0100, you wrote:
>On 5/1/07, Damien Broderick wrote:
> > I wrote one 30 years ago, published finally in 1982, in which almost
> > all remnant humans have withdrawn into simulations (under the lofty
> > custodianship of human-AI cyborgs). I never dreamed it would take so 
> long. :)
> >
>
>This scenario is often offered as the reason for Fermi's paradox.
><http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/05/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens.php>
>
>This writer uses EP failings in modern man to support his thesis.
>
>Quotes:
>As a result, brains must evolve short-cuts: fitness-promoting tricks,
>cons, recipes and heuristics that work, on average, under ancestrally
>normal conditions. The result is that we don't seek reproductive
>success directly; we seek tasty foods that have tended to promote
>survival, and luscious mates who have tended to produce bright,
>healthy babies. The modern result? Fast food and pornography.
>
>Fitness-faking technology tends to evolve much faster than our
>psychological resistance to it.
>
>This is the Great Temptation for any technological species?to shape
>their subjective reality to provide the cues of survival and
>reproductive success without the substance.
>--------------

I wrote about this 20 years ago in a nanotechnology context.

"Another problem is how to improve ourselves without getting completely lost.
Today the mental modules at the root of our personalities change slowly if at
all.  When our deepest desires can be quickly modified with trivial effort, how
much of us will survive?  The results of modifying ourselves could be as tragic
as being modified by others.*  This and nanotechnology based "super dope" that
make everyone happy but without ambition (or even the desire to eat) are among
the subtle dangers we face.  It is time for those of us who are concerned about
our futures to start thinking about these problems."

But the idea has been around *much* longer.  I remember a short story about 
a time traveler who finds the world almost deserted, then he is grabbed and 
stuffed in an entertainment machine becoming the lead in a cowboy movie.

Keith



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue May  1 07:49:04 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 07:49:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism
 and	Religion in Second Life
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0705010024t31444343gf331e879f7ef30de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0705010024t31444343gf331e879f7ef30de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46375360.1050100@mac.com>

BillK wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Damien Broderick wrote:
>   
>> I wrote one 30 years ago, published finally in 1982, in which almost
>> all remnant humans have withdrawn into simulations (under the lofty
>> custodianship of human-AI cyborgs). I never dreamed it would take so long. :)
>>
>>     
>
> This scenario is often offered as the reason for Fermi's paradox.
> <http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/05/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens.php>
>
> This writer uses EP failings in modern man to support his thesis.
>
> Quotes:
> As a result, brains must evolve short-cuts: fitness-promoting tricks,
> cons, recipes and heuristics that work, on average, under ancestrally
> normal conditions. The result is that we don't seek reproductive
> success directly; we seek tasty foods that have tended to promote
> survival, and luscious mates who have tended to produce bright,
> healthy babies. The modern result? Fast food and pornography.
>
> Fitness-faking technology tends to evolve much faster than our
> psychological resistance to it.
>
> This is the Great Temptation for any technological species?to shape
> their subjective reality to provide the cues of survival and
> reproductive success without the substance.
> --------------
>   

It is a truism that any evolved intelligences will have evolved a  
package of cognitive, psychological and physical leading to reproductive 
fitness in its evolutionary environment.  As an intelligence species 
advances its knowledge and technology the environment that it must deal 
with changes quite rapidly and becomes much more complex.   Thus for the 
species to continue to thrive it must be able to address and change many 
of it evolution programmed characteristics or find fruitful ways to 
satisfy them without being overly limited by such or constrained from 
creating a viable future.    It also must dramatically increase its 
effective intelligence.  As I see it this will be true of any and all 
naturally evolved intelligent species throughout the universe.  The 
difficulty of going beyond evolutionary programming to this extent 
probably accounts in large part for the seeming dearth of post 
Singularity species.


- samantha

From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue May  1 07:58:02 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 07:58:02 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds
In-Reply-To: <BAY140-DAV436F3CD104143D5AC84A9A74D0@phx.gbl>
References: <20070427102544.GA9439@leitl.org>
	<BAY140-DAV434F618C7E51BFCE106F8A74F0@phx.gbl>
	<20070428090423.GO9439@leitl.org>
	<BAY140-DAV119F0F110632C68875E282A74D0@phx.gbl>
	<084d01c78a46$fe3ccdd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV436F3CD104143D5AC84A9A74D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4637557A.9090601@mac.com>

Heartland wrote:
> Heartland:
>   
>>> The reality is that it takes many steps to change someone's mind.
>>> At each step you need to convince him/her of some point that is
>>> necessary to build your argument. It's a slow process that could
>>> take years or even decades depending on how emotionally
>>> attached a person is to his/her irrational beliefs...
>>>       
>
> Lee:
>   
>> Tch, tch, tch.  You don't get it.  The other beliefs are *not* irrational.
>> I wish that you and John Clark could see this. It's possible that they're
>> not even incorrect.  It's possible that it's a "conflict of visions" sort of
>> phenomenon.
>>     

Please define "rational".  Without a working agreed definition 
statements about the rationality/irrationality of X are without 
meaning.  By my working definition, rationality is adherence to reality, 
seeking to understand and perfect one's understanding of reality.  
Beliefs that start with rigorous adherence to a particular dogma without 
any appreciable evidence and even in contradiction to what is know of 
reality can in no wise be "rational" by such a definition.  Beliefs that 
are self-contradictory cannot be based in reality. 

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue May  1 08:10:10 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 08:10:10 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Mr. Bush's Magical Effectiveness
In-Reply-To: <085601c78a48$653e5250$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070427183950.042a2270@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070428134420.03fc0dd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<082b01c78a02$58f8da60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<8131F430-7FB9-4CDD-A277-9006B6624AE3@randallsquared.com>
	<085601c78a48$653e5250$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <46375852.6030309@mac.com>

Lee Corbin wrote:
> Randall writes
>
>   
>> On Apr 28, 2007, at 10:01 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Goering understood Germany of the first half of
>>> the 20th century, but he did not truly understand
>>> the nature of freer countries where dissent had
>>> a long tradition. Do you think that Bush today
>>> could simply fabricate a "Gulf of Tonkin incident"
>>> the way LBJ did and get a declaration of war
>>> out of Congress against Iran?   Of course not.
>>>       
>> Of course, he could.
>>     
>
> And now with a Democratic Congress????   What
> are you smoking.  He can't even keep the leader
> of the House of Representatives from executing
> her own foreign policy.  Somehow I just think that
> if Bush said that a terrrrrrible event happened in
> the Persian Gulf and we needed to go to war with
> Iran right now, he'd be asked for a lot of evidence.
> Actually, the understatement of my last sentence
> is staggering.
>
>   
>> It would be a lot harder now than the mere
>> suggestion of WMDs was, but he could certainly
>> do it and have a good chance of working, for a while.
>>     
>
> No way.  Besides, as I said earlier, for a lot of us
> the WMD wasn't really the issue.  On the Extropians
> list at the time I listed *five* reasons that I thought
> invading Iraq was a good idea.  The WMD was
> probably about reason #4.  (The idea being that
> while there was no immanent threat, just as Bush
> said, it seemed clear that Hussein's heart was set
> on getting some nukes sooner or later, and he seemed
> just crazy enough to use them on us, or have some
> unaccountable stooges do it for him.
>   

That thinking was obviously fallacious as I pointed out at the time.  I 
was right.  Did you learn anything from it?  It doesn't seem like it.   
We had been monitoring and bombing the infrastructure of Iraq for a 
decade.  There was no room to put together the technology to become a 
full nuclear power.  At the most Hussein could have bought a few loose 
nukes like any other well-funded hothead in the world.  Was he stupid 
enough to use them against us?  I doubt it very much.  Does that 
possibility justify invasion and the death of hundreds of thousands and 
loss of hundreds of billions of dollars?  No way.   And here we are 
willing to make excuses for the creatures we allow to run our country to 
do something equally stupid and reprehensible in Iran.  Seeing such I 
seriously doubt this species is long for this universe.

> But that's not the main point.  You don't think---
> especially since there has been no serious terrorist
> attack against the U.S. in the last five years that
> a (now Democratic controlled!) Congress would
> give him carte blanche all over again??
>
>   
I think there are those in power quite capable of concocting any type of 
incident they deem necessary to further their agenda.  I also think that 
the only real reason we went to Iraq and are hot on Iran is oil and the 
Peak thereof.   As we are studiously not doing adequate work to find 
actually workable alternate energy that underlying motivation is not 
going away. 

- samantha


From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue May  1 08:50:47 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 10:50:47 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible?
In-Reply-To: <f1d9c15f0704302200p29f68512k2a9fbb457dba0e7c@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<f1d9c15f0704302200p29f68512k2a9fbb457dba0e7c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070501104728.0401fbb8@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 12:00 AM 5/1/2007, you wrote:

>Brett Paasch wrote:
>>I would oppose your reanimation.
>
>This is my first day on this list. I only want to say I was shocked and 
>disappointed to see someone say such a thing as Brett did. Hopefully this 
>is not common on this list.

Welcome Andres.  No it is not common on this list; not at all.

Emotions can rise and fall and we have had some heated political 
discussions over the many, many years.  But never with such extreme ill will.

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Advisory Committee, <http://www.pietronigro.com/zgac/>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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070501/7242cbc8/attachment.html 

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue May  1 08:48:45 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 08:48:45 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds
References: <20070427102544.GA9439@leitl.org><BAY140-DAV434F618C7E51BFCE106F8A74F0@phx.gbl><20070428090423.GO9439@leitl.org><BAY140-DAV119F0F110632C68875E282A74D0@phx.gbl><084d01c78a46$fe3ccdd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV436F3CD104143D5AC84A9A74D0@phx.gbl>
	<4637557A.9090601@mac.com>
Message-ID: <0a8901c78c08$9ccb88c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Samantha writes

> [Lee wrote]
> 
>> Tch, tch, tch.  You don't get it.  The other beliefs are *not* irrational.
>> I wish that you and John Clark could see this. It's possible that they're
>> not even incorrect.  It's possible that it's a "conflict of visions" sort of
>> phenomenon.
>  
> Please define "rational".

No, *you* define "rational"!   [Er, she does later on...]  I gave up on
that months ago as I questioned over and over again the way that people
were throwing the word and the concept around.

I will define (loosely) what "irrational" means, "loosely" because strict
definitions are not possible outside math.  As Cassius J. Kaiser once
wrote "If he says that he has defined all his terms, and proved all his
propositions, then either he is a performer of logical miracles, or he
is an ass, and, as you know, logical miracles are impossible".  :-)

"Irrational" means to me that someone is being inconsistent, or that
their behavior shows signs of instability, or that their arguments over
and over again do not seem to hold together coherently.  By saying
above, as I did, that someone's arguments were not necessarily
*irrational*, all I was doing was chiding those who were not seeing
the actual integrity (wholeness) of their adversary's argument.

> Without a working agreed definition statements about the
> rationality/irrationality of X are without meaning.

Oh!  Here you go on to brave a definition of rationality. This should
be good.

> By my working definition, rationality is adherence to reality, 
> seeking to understand and perfect one's understanding of reality.  

"Adherence to reality" is rather too vague, as I am sure you realized
as you wrote that, and even people who are irrational (on my usage
and yours, probably) are *seeking* to understand---it's
just that they're obviously not doing a very good job of it.

> Beliefs that start with rigorous adherence to a particular dogma without 
> any appreciable evidence and even in contradiction to what is know of 
> reality can in no wise be "rational" by such a definition.  Beliefs that 
> are self-contradictory cannot be based in reality. 

Right.  So long as you have added together "without any appreciable
evidence" AND "even in contradition to what is known" .  One of the
principles of PCR is that one may forward any conjecture for whatever
reason:  what matters is how successful it is in resisting criticism, not
where you got it.  It doesn't matter if your God happened to pass it
on in a dream or whatever.

Lee

From ben at goertzel.org  Tue May  1 08:51:14 2007
From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 11:51:14 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Army binoculars and psi
Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705010851w190f675eyea1f6ec1d0dbed33@mail.gmail.com>

Damien --

Hey, maybe these new army binoculars will inadvertently
exploit unconscious precognition ;-)

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2007/05/binoculars

-- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070501/004a5caa/attachment.html 

From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue May  1 08:50:22 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 08:50:22 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Putting God to Rest
In-Reply-To: <20070424232500.88193.qmail@web37211.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20070424232500.88193.qmail@web37211.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <463761BE.6090808@mac.com>

Sorry for the late response.

Anna Taylor wrote:
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Actually everyone has a right to believe whatever
>> they wish but they have no right whatsoever to
>> respect or kind treatment for believing pernicious
>> nonsense.  The nonsense itself has no "rights" at
>> all. There is no "debate" implied or required here.
>>     
>
> There is no debate for you.  Are you implying that any
> and all people that believe in God should have no
> right to respect?  
>
>   
I have no need to debate a subject I have studied long and hard and 
reached completion on.  I certainly have no need to "debate" with those 
who believe nonsense such as bible inerrancy that it is clearly 
erroneous or bizarre notions at blatant contradiction with reality like 
the world only being a few thousand years old.  Those people deserve not 
one iota of respect.  Just because a set of ideas is shrouded in 
"religion" does not mean they should be automatically respected more. 
They stand or fall on their own merits.  I never said that belief in God 
per se deserves disrespect.  It depends.


>> What, by debating how many angels can dance on a
>> nanobot?   How does that help anyone?  
>>     
>
> I choose to respect her beliefs and in that I try to
> incorporate ideas to integrate within her reality. 
> Are you saying the best approach is to simply tell her
> she's a complete idiot for believing in Religion?  How
> does that help anyone?
>
>   
Depends on the "Religion".  If they particular beliefs are nonsense and 
even harmful nonsense then not saying so can be tacit support.  This 
does not mean that it makes sense to say so in all circumstances.

>> What business do you have speaking about God and what
>> God might object to?  
>>     
>
> I have taken the time to learn theology so I feel I
> have every business discusing God with my mother.
>
>   
Not the same thing.  Context was lost.   If you act contrary to your own 
understanding that is not a good thing.  If you do not believe in God 
and yet speak about what God wants then that is a clear contradiction.

>> You know you are talking nonsense yet you
>> condescendingly talk religious baby talk to them to
>> try to get your point across to those who believe. 
>> This is dishonest and perhaps cowardly.  Are you
>> ashamed to be an atheist?
>>     
>
> There are many things I respect about Religion
> therefore I don't believe it's nonsense.  If taking 
> the time to understand someone else's point of view 
> is dishonest and cowardly, then yes I am.  I don't
> understand how a post about common courtesy for other
> people's beliefs has anything to do with me being
> ashamed to be an atheist.
>
>   
If you do not believe what you are couching you arguments in then that 
is dishonest.  If you hide your own beliefs and best understanding then 
perhaps you are acting out of fear and not "respect" at all.   I am not 
talking here about "common courtesy" and I think you know it.

>> You don't?  Then why aren't you a believer?
>>     
>
> Who cares whether I am a believer or not?  I thought
> this list was about Transhumanism, future technology,
> prolonging life etc., if it is,  whether the majority 
> is Atheist has no relevancy to the fact that the
> minority have every right to be respected. If the
> Extropy list is set on defining that "to be Extropian
> one must be atheist" then fine but until that is
> clearly stated everybody on this list deserves the
> right to be respected.  When you denounce Religion,
> you are not respecting their beliefs.
>
>   
You said at one time that you are not a believer.  Then you speak as if 
you are or see nothing problematic about being one.  So I am a bit 
confused where you stand on the matter or in my attempts to understand 
your position.    No one has the right to automatic respect.   Respect 
is earned or it is a sham meaning nothing. 

I don't know why you want to go down this path of "if X then Y" about 
hypotheticals not remotely in evidence.  I speak for myself not for the 
list.    Much of religion is reprehensible.  That is my experience and 
very considered opinion.  It came from many years of my life diligently 
exploring the subject both theoretically and as a serious practitioner.  
How dare you tell me that my considered opinion is disrespectful of 
those who believe!   What a cheap shot.

>> You may do something worse than not try.  You seem
>> to sort of pretend to take her side. 
>>     
>
> What if I grew up in Religion and decided it wasn't
> for me?  Does that mean I am pretending to take her
> side?  What if I understand her point of view, just
> simply don't agree?.  I may not change her mind about
> God but bringing up ideas such as Cryonics from her
> point of view is a creative way at getting my point
> accross, that to me seems more logical than calling
> her beliefs "bullshit".
>
>   
If you decided it is not for you then why act as if it is is all I am 
saying.  I understand her point of view myself.   

>> If God exists and is as the majority of Christians
>> believe then I would most certainly be on the "other
>> side".  Such a Being would be monstrously evil.   
>>     
>
> I would like for you to explain to me what are the
> common beliefs about God that the majority of
> Christians have.  "Such a Being would be Monstrously
> evil" is the reason why I brought up the point to
> begin with.
>
>   
Presumably you grew up in it so you are perfectly aware of such.  Start 
with the doctrine of eternal damnation for one measly lifetime where the 
proper dogma was somehow not properly believed and go on from there.   
To create imperfect beings and then punish them eternally for not being 
perfect is about as definitive of Evil as it gets.


>> Do you see what is wrong with telling many of us
>> here that we must "respect their beliefs" in a
>> similar fashion to what you choose to do or we aren't
>> reasonable people?   Thank you for your opinion but
>> it is certainly not binding on me.
>>     
>
> I am not saying that you have to respect their
> beliefs, I am saying you should respect the people on
> this list that may be religious.
>   

By what, being silently about my own conclusions on the matter?  No way.

>   
>> Then I do not believe you are through learning about
>> religion.  If you knew it better you would have a
>> problem with it.
>>     
>
> Why should I have a problem with it?  Explain to me
> why religion as a whole is that bad.  I am aware why I
> don't believe but I would like to hear your rational
> point of views.
>   

That is a long subject.  Perhaps later.

>   
>> What for?  What is it about a group of people who
>> are more shut of religion saying what they think of
>> it that bothers you so much?  
>>     
>
> I loathe disrespect. This list is not about Religion
> therefore out of respect for those that are religious,
> comments and statements that ridicule their beliefs
> should not be made.  What is wrong with that?
>
>   
I think you may have an odd notion of what respect entails or how and 
when it should be shown.   If I have found through my own study that X 
is ridiculous I would no be doing anyone any favors by refusing to say 
so.  It certainly would not be any sign of "respect".    The world of 
the Enlightenment in under attack in the US by many religious 
organizations.   Such automatic "respect" could lead to the destruction 
of much we hold dear.



>> You grant religious folks room to believe and
>> practice all manner of zany and even dangerous things
>> and respect them doing so and don't go out your way
>> to challenge them.  Yet a few things set by atheists
>> here and you feel utter frustration and get upset? 
>> Why? I think you may need to examine what is going on
>> in you more deeply.
>>     
>
> I think it's the other way around.  Your blatant hate
> does nothing to change the minds of those that are
> religious so why state the opinion in the first place?
>  Have you ever thought that I consider many on this
> list as being rational and logical and in that
> respect, I choose to defend the ones that are being
> subjected to ridicule and contempt?  I'm sorry you
> don't understand that.  
>
>   
I have no "blatant hate" and it is very hateful of you to say I do.    
Your responses seem contradictory to me.

> Obviously my point wasn't well received, I apologize
> for that.  It wasn't my intention to start a battle
> between the religious and the atheists, I was just
> trying to give the same respect to those that are
> Atheists as to those that aren't.  You can guarantee I
> will never bring up Religion again, what a fuss!
>
>   
No you were not.  You were telling atheists in effect to shut up.  

- samantha


From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue May  1 09:07:35 2007
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 11:07:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible?
In-Reply-To: <880958.25542.qm@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com>
	<880958.25542.qm@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070501105209.0495af48@pop-server.austin.rr.com>

At 08:41 PM 4/30/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Natasha,
>
>I hope you enjoyed your stay in Montreal and that
>people where hospitable.

Very.  It was hard work and challenging, but I was able to accomplish a lot.

>I am curious to know why Brett didn't politely, on
>list, ask Eugen why he thought that the thread should
>be killed?

It appears that his emotions were running on explosive ingredients. Not 
everyone can be civil when emotions are out of wack.  Killing a thread is 
not something that is done easily.

Natasha


>Thanks
>Anna:)
>
>
>
>--- Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>
> > It was called to my attention that there have been
> > some problems on the
> > list.  Since I am not a moderator I have not
> > followed the thread on this
> > and since I have been travelling for several weeks,
> > I did not know there
> > was a problem. But because we share this list as a
> > venue to discuss and
> > challenge ideas, I think that we all need to take a
> > look at this:
> >
> >
> > From: Eugen Leitl
> >
><<http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat>eugen
> > at
> > leitl.org>
> >
> >  >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 01:53:25PM +1000, Brett
> > Paatsch wrote:
> >  > >John Grigg wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > > Attempting to impeach the current president is
> > not a realistic plan
> >  > >
> >  > > Why would you think that?
> >  >
> >  > Folks, killthread. This is completely off-topic
> > for the list.
> >
> > Brett responded:
> >
> >
> > "Eugen, just so you and I are absolutely clear. If
> > you kill this thread, or
> > call for it to be killed again. If your are that
> > censorious, I will
> > remember it and hold it against you whilst you and I
> > live. I would oppose
> > your reanimation. I will regard you as in the
> > aggregate an entropic vector.
> >
> >
> > I am willing to be censored off the list, it is a
> > private list after all,
> > but actions (like censorship) are facts that shape
> > reactions. Being a
> > person in a world of persons, I take things
> > personally. Fair warning.
> >
> >
> > If I am censored off the list I would take that as
> > diagnostic of the
> >
> > degeneration of the list.  It is one thing to take
> > issue with a persons
> >
> > arguments and say so. It is another to stop other
> > people from hearing
> >
> > those arguments and expressing their reactions which
> > may include
> >
> > opposition to them. I regard censorship as a form of
> > killing - as do
> >
> > you by the use of your word killthread.
> >
> >
> > You are yourself a transient information thread that
> > the universe
> >
> > has yet to rule on."
> >
> > Like Brett I do not like being censored.  But there
> > is a difference between
> > being censored and being sensible.  The extropy list
> > does have rules and
> > guidelines and list members are required to follow
> > them in order to post on
> > this list.  Whether or not Brett's thread is on
> > topic for this list is one
> > issue at stake.  Now, there are many variables
> > involved that can add one
> > way or another such as a post may be a topic the
> > list members want to
> > engage in but it is not a transhumanist topic per
> > se.  Or, it can be a
> > topic that is curious for list members but the way
> > in which it is presented
> > to the list, or the language used or implications of
> > the meaning of the
> > posts can cause a moderator to request that the
> > thread be put to
> > rest.  These variables are important to pay
> > attention to.
> >
> > Further, and not totally unrelated, I was censored
> > from the Cryonics list
> > when I was being an activist to help a fellow
> > cryonicist.  Now this was
> > truly strange and frankly made me think much less of
> > cryonicists than I had
> > prior.  But I also understood that it touched a
> > nerve with other list
> > members and I did not take it personally, retaliate,
> > or blame them.  I
> > belive that I was in the wrong for not paying
> > attention to the feelings of
> > other list members.  I was too busy to read
> > responses, and that was also my
> > mistake.  I was so driven to do something worthwhile
> > that it backfired on me.
> >
> > I see what you (Brett) are doing as something
> > different but sharing some
> > similarities.  You posted on a topic that you are
> > passionate about.  The
> > difference with you and me is that you are blaming
> > and making accusations
> > and insulting list members.  I would not do this
> > because even if people do
> > not agree with me, I do my best to accept the
> > differences.  You are also
> > different than me in the way you handled this.
> > Instead of approaching the
> > topic from a constructive inclusive manner, you made
> > assumptions and
> > accusations.  This never sits well with list
> > members.
> >
> > And, finally, I do not like is the content of your
> > (Brett) response to the
> > list moderator (Eugene) requesting that the thread
> > be killed.  You made a
> > threat and does not sit well with me and I'm sure
> > others.  But putting that
> > aside, what do other list members think of this
> > thread?
> >
> > Lastly, I do think this is a topic that warrants
> > objective examination and
> > search for resolution.  I invite you to think about
> > this.
> >
> > In hopes of resolution rather than slamming doors,
> >
> > Natasha
> >
> >
> > <http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha
> > <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
> > PhD Candidate,
> > <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary
> > Collegium
> > Proactionary Principle Core Group,
> > <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy
> > <http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
> > Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of
> > Professional Futurists
> > Founder,
> > <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts &
> > Culture
> > Advisory Committee,
> > <http://www.pietronigro.com/zgac/>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
> >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>
>
>
>       Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to 
> Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, <http://www.planetary-collegium.net/about/>Planetary Collegium
Proactionary Principle Core Group, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy 
<http://www.extropy.org/>Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture
Advisory Committee, <http://www.pietronigro.com/zgac/>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: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070501/d3ee4b26/attachment.html 

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue May  1 09:35:36 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 09:35:36 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Back to Causes of War
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com><5.1.0.14.0.20070427183950.042a2270@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070428134420.03fc0dd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <0a9701c78c0e$f224d780$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Keith---in that amazing post that could launch a thousand threads---wrote

> [Lee wrote]
>> You seem to contend sometimes that it's war fever among a small ruling
>> elite, at other times that an entire tribe or nation has "grim prospects",
>> and at other times that it's current deprivation of an entire band, and so on.
>> Can you summarize?
> 
> No.
> 
> We are just working from such different data bases that I think I should 
> not respond again until you have read the Azar Gat paper.  Let me know
> when you have.
> 
> http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf

Okay, I read it. And it didn't take 15 minutes:  I had to ponder a lot of the
paragraphs  :-)

For me, the most striking thing about the paper was his relentless illustration
of the *normal* condition of human tribes, namely to be at constant war
with one another.  On to the trash heap went my views, for example, that
the American Indians of the Northwest Coast were peaceable, and that
the poor sweet !Kung of the Kalahari Desert (who, he says, are popularly
known as the "harmless people") were not violent.

    "Richard Lee who contributedd to the creation of this impression,
    nevertheless reports (1979) that in his study area in the period
    1963-1969, there were 22 cases of homicide; 19 of the victims
    were males, as were all of the 25 killers. This amounts to a rate
    of 0.29 person per thousand per year, and had been 0.42 before
    the coming of firm state authority."

What's this?  "Firm state authority"?  Ah, he means colonialism!  No wonder
I never heard about any of this in high school or college---the damned leftists
who run our educational systems have zero incentive to do anything but
suppress information like that.

Professor Gat is relentless:

    "Among the Eskimo of the central Canadian arctic,  who lacked
    group warfare, violent death, in so-called 'blood feuds' and 'homicide'
    was estimated by one authority at one person per thousand per year,
    10 times the 1990 USA rate."

Except for this tack, there was little that was new in the paper for me.
Anyone who has kept up at all with the EP literature---say, Matt Ridley's
books (1995, etc.), Miller's "The Mating Mind", Cosmides and Toomey's
numerous papers, and so on, will not be shocked by anything in the paper,
though he or she will see a lot of his or her believes carefully documented.
What Gat does is very thoroughly detail the behavior of human groups
in the EEA and in modern primitive societies still struggling under non-
colonial control by the civilized powers.

The real question (not addressed at all by this paper whose focus is 
entirely as I just stated) is Why are modern nations so *peaceful*?
And the original main purpose of this thread and its predecessors was
to address the causes of all wars, not just primitive fighting. 

I *will* summarize what I have written here on the topic.  First, civilized
societies are not necessarily more peaceful, even the literate ones!  E.g. the
Maya or the proto-nations and nations of Western Europe 500 AD -
1500 AD  Sometimes peace was establish in the old days---as in
approximately 100 AD - 180 AD---when some fairly reasonable empire
could maintain it (by force).

Second, a sea-change seems to have overcome the West around 1700 or 
1800:  gone were the constant wars of preceding generations. Especially
per capita, wars became fewer and fewer over time.  Go graph the number
of wars and the amount of blood shed between England and France:  it
monotonically decreases from 1000 AD to 1815, and then stops altogether.
(Of course there were fluctuations, but my point is that the wars really did
become fewer over the centuries and of less severity.)  What caused this
sea-change?

My answer is that it simply became more profitable to maintain peace than
to try to plunder adjacent nations. For one thing, there was less comparative
plunder than ever before (compared to the wealth of generating your own),
and another thing, the dang wars just got too expensive and the ability of
the other nation to inflict reciprocal damage kept growing.  So an era
of game-theoretic cooperation has emerged.

Three, the causes of modern era war are too numerous to allow generalization.
Keith sometimes said that population pressure causes war, and it is true that
high population growth in modern nations *facilitates* war, but it doesn't 
cause it.  For example, the high birth rates in Germany, England, and France
before WWI made for aggressive nations in two ways:  first, young people
are usually quite willing and able to go to war (until 1950 or so in the West);
they have the vitality and the group instinct I submit, and second, they
provide enough cannon fodder to make the wars a go.

Keith sometimes said that it was 'grim prospects' that caused war. Certainly
that is a factor, maybe a major factor, in the EEA as Professor Gat documents.
And *sometimes* it is a contributing factor in modern wars, if taken not too
literally.  Again WWI affords a great example:  the English were scared to
death that the Germans would overtake them economically (1914 in fact
was the very first year in which this occurred---see "The Illusion of Victory",
a rather new book by Thomas Fleming).  And the Germans were scared to
death that Russia and the Slavs in general were going to surpass them in a
variety of ways.  Paul Johnson in "Modern Times" states this as a attitudinal
fact among the German intelligencia apparently stemming from various
wacked-out German philosophers.

But throughout pre-modern times in the last millenium, a typical cause of
war was one prince's avarice towards the domains of his neighbors. Most
of the English-French wars were of this kind, for example, as were the
endless wars between the various Italian city states. Another typical
cause was vast population movement---the Avars or the Huns or someone
would be on the move (chased by another tribe even more formidable) and
the poor Romans or anyone else within range had to bear the consequences.

Yet none of these explanations account for all modern wars---exceptions
can be found for any and all of them. E.g. the Great Patriotic war, which
included the largest and most deadly battles ever fought,  was caused
entirely by one man's irrational urges and his warped philosophy.

Lee


From jef at jefallbright.net  Tue May  1 08:49:33 2007
From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 08:49:33 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds
In-Reply-To: <4637557A.9090601@mac.com>
References: <20070427102544.GA9439@leitl.org>
	<BAY140-DAV434F618C7E51BFCE106F8A74F0@phx.gbl>
	<20070428090423.GO9439@leitl.org>
	<BAY140-DAV119F0F110632C68875E282A74D0@phx.gbl>
	<084d01c78a46$fe3ccdd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV436F3CD104143D5AC84A9A74D0@phx.gbl>
	<4637557A.9090601@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f7bfe5740705010849t49805e0cg6c6cdf351e3247b0@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/1/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> Please define "rational".  Without a working agreed definition
> statements about the rationality/irrationality of X are without
> meaning.  By my working definition, rationality is adherence to reality,
> seeking to understand and perfect one's understanding of reality.
> Beliefs that start with rigorous adherence to a particular dogma without
> any appreciable evidence and even in contradiction to what is know of
> reality can in no wise be "rational" by such a definition.  Beliefs that
> are self-contradictory cannot be based in reality.

Interesting that I see this in nearly opposite terms.

Rather than "beliefs that are self contradictory cannot be based in
reality", I see all beliefs being based in reality and contradictions
tending to resolve with increasing context of awareness.

Rather than rationality being "adherence to reality", I see
rationality as necessarily subjective decision-making based on what
remains after discarding what seems to be unreality.

Of course we're both describing the same process, but your view
assumes both consistency and objectivity.  Mine assumes only
consistency.

While this might appear to be polemical hair-splitting, it is very
pertinent to understanding how independent subjective agents progress
toward increasing agreement about the nature of their common reality.

- Jef

From max at maxmore.com  Tue May  1 10:11:11 2007
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:11:11 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] Fwd: spiked-survey: What's the Greatest Innovation?
Message-ID: <200705011711.l41HB0gC006942@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>


>Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 04:45:00 -0700
>From: sp!ked <spiked-central at spiked-online.com>
>Subject: spiked-survey: What's the Greatest Innovation?
>To: max at maxmore.com
>Original-recipient: rfc822;maxmore at austin.rr.com
>
>
>
>The internet, the alphabet, the discovery of nuclear fusion, x-rays, 
>the brick, rockets, the eraser: all of these have been identified as 
>the greatest innovations in history in a new survey.
>
>Over 100 key thinkers and experts from the fields of science, 
>technology and medicine - including six Nobel laureates - 
>participated in the brand new spiked/Pfizer survey 
><http://spikedltd.c.topica.com/maagkBJabyc5fcfyHocc/>'What's the 
>Greatest Innovation?', which goes live on spiked today.
>
>In his introduction to the survey, spiked's editor-at-large Mick 
>Hume says: 'Some choose "sexy" looking innovations, others apologise 
>for the apparent dullness of their arcane choices. But whatever the 
>appearances, almost all of our respondents exude a sense of 
>certainty about the improvement that innovations in their field are 
>making to our world, and the potential for more of the same.' Read 
>his survey overview <http://spikedltd.c.topica.com/maagkBJabyc5gcfyHocc/>here.
>
>The survey has also featured in the British press 
><http://spikedltd.c.topica.com/maagkBJabyc5hcfyHocc/>here.
>
>The survey will roll through May and June. If you want to join the 
>debate, come along to our event in London on Wednesday 6 June. Book 
>tickets <http://spikedltd.c.topica.com/maagkBJabyc5icfyHocc/>here.


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue May  1 11:26:04 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 13:26:04 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] What's the Greatest Innovation?
In-Reply-To: <200705011711.l41HB0gC006942@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>
References: <200705011711.l41HB0gC006942@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501132526.0228aba8@satx.rr.com>

I like Frank Wilczek's reply:

The greatest innovation in physics, and I think in all of science, 
was the discovery that important behaviour of natural objects can be 
described with mathematical precision.  This was the centrepiece of 
the 17th century scientific revolution, after which we've never 
looked back. It sharply divides the sort of rough-and-ready intuitive 
semi-understanding that comes to us naturally, and even satisfied 
such powerful and such sophisticated minds as Aristotle and Thomas 
Aquinas, from today's science.

All the subsequent 'revolutions', including electromagnetic field 
theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics, were inevitable after that 
discovery; as were the technologies of the Industrial and Information 
revolutions. You can't find what you're not looking for; but if you 
know what to look for, and it's there, eventually you'll find it!


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue May  1 12:20:58 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 14:20:58 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future?.
In-Reply-To: <03cc01c78bc8$0dd60b80$290b4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <640411.85381.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<BAY140-DAV10FF88DE411737188A97D7A74A0@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704240604n3a4866c2g65248cdb4c0d163d@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV103A72E84429DF76917B72A7490@phx.gbl>
	<f21c22e30704251712l2d5e98b2j19ae2b1ce0a62e62@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV110E971B807C895A58914CA74F0@phx.gbl>
	<013c01c788f3$06c458b0$f60a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<38A94159-536C-45C8-81E5-DDA4DFE9FC25@randallsquared.com>
	<076f01c78914$571c6b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<F2950714-099C-4700-AE5E-B37DE6DBD374@randallsquared.com>
	<07a201c78995$38a5c970$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<1A7A74FD-3240-435A-B117-6F3B0B522232@randallsquared.com>
	<083c01c78a08$a753b1c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<E4E96CD3-43A7-4A1F-BA7A-86656BC874E2@randallsquared.com>
	<086701c78a4b$33d7cef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070429135619.0236cb40@satx.rr.com>
	<00ba01c78b6b$b62ccf60$dc0a4e0c@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070430170213.023ad358@satx.rr.com>
	<03cc01c78bc8$0dd60b80$290b4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501141902.022b9d60@satx.rr.com>

At 04:02 AM 5/1/2007 -0400, John K Clark wrote:

>Me:
> >> Why does randomness and stupidity beat
> >> intelligence?
>
>You:
> > In the general sense, because they had 4 billion years
>
>It took 4 billion years because random mutation and natural selection is
>incredibly STUPID! Intelligence is not stupid, that's why it's called
>intelligence.

I didn't know that! Drat, now I'm going to have to reorganize my 
whole worldview.


From Thomas at thomasoliver.net  Tue May  1 12:19:28 2007
From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:19:28 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress
References: <ee50357e0705010008s218c9720y25917fa1b558c2f4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net>

BillK wrote:

>On 5/1/07, Thomas wrote:
><snip>
>  
>
>>Not completely off-topic since many of Bush's efforts have worked
>>against the extropian, especially funding war at the expense of medical
>>and technological progress
>>
>
>Not true!
>I have supported the proposition before that war funding vastly
>increases technological and medical developments. Look at all the
>stuff DARPA is funding.
>WWII certainly generated a great leap forward in technology and medicine.
>(The downside, of course, is that war tends to kill a lot of people).
>
>Agreed that Bush has opposed funding some stem cell research, but that
>was on religious grounds, nothing to do with the war funding.
>
>
>BillK
>
That's a good point, but I didn't say all the war funding diminished 
medical and technological progress.  Still, these increased developments 
cannot be vast enough to justify the deaths and the enormous 
disproportion of the allocations.  I doubt this war will prove as 
proportionally fruitful for progress as WWII.  We had much better 
leadership then.  

I say, if we have to have a leader, lets think about how to get a better 
one.  

I just looked at the Cost of War 
<http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182> 
figure: $421 billion and rising!  Over $6 billion of that came from my 
state and over 5 million homes with renewable electricity could have 
been built with that money.1  Instead of a preemptive war on a non 
aggressor nation or a hype "War on Terror" or a "War on Drugs" lets have 
a War on Aging and fund nano research to the tune of $40 billion (one 
tenth the cost of the war) or so for starters.  

Does your general "Not true!" mean you think Bush a good leader for us? 
 Does it mean you think war the best choice for achieving progress? 
 Does it mean you think me seriously wrong or deceitful?  Or do you 
perhaps think Bush impeachable for mixing politics and religion on the 
stem cell issue?  -- Thomas


1. 
http://database.nationalpriorities.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/nppdatabase.woa/1/wo/bHOa5it2urn2Tsu6pQGUow/0.0.1.1.6.1


From hilarleo at gmail.com  Tue May  1 11:32:04 2007
From: hilarleo at gmail.com (leo)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 11:32:04 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 43, Issue 53
In-Reply-To: <mailman.185.1178002485.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.185.1178002485.11507.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <ac1dbd0b0705011132i1d6bc317g3dc116c734dca5a5@mail.gmail.com>

hello hello [new here]

there's at least one widely read
and mathematically memorable short story about a few
such implicit issues of such transhuman societies:

"WANG'S CARPETS" by Greg Egan
in  Dozois' "Best Science Fiction, Thirteenth Annual..."
(& according to one reader poll
"... #13 (1995) is perhaps the best of all of Gardner's Annuals..." ).

_Wang_ refers to the mathematician Wang Hao ? the carpets are living
embodiments of Wang tiles, and provide a further model of transhuman
societies.

& although I dont know it meself,
"this story, minorly reworked, became a section of the novel Diaspora".

leo
'somewhere' in Second Life

At 11:30 PM 4/30/2007 -0400, Keith wrote:
>I have been working on an unpublishable novel where the big problem of a
>hundred years hence is to prevent all the physical state human population
>from vanishing into simulations.
>
>I started it before Second Life.  I never dreamed I would see such an
>example before I finished it.

I wrote one 30 years ago, published finally in 1982, in which almost
all remnant humans have withdrawn into simulations (under the lofty
custodianship of human-AI cyborgs). I never dreamed it would take so long. :)

Damien Broderick


From eugen at leitl.org  Tue May  1 12:54:54 2007
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 21:54:54 +0200
Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress
In-Reply-To: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net>
References: <ee50357e0705010008s218c9720y25917fa1b558c2f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <20070501195454.GL17691@leitl.org>

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:19:28PM -0700, Thomas wrote:

> I just looked at the Cost of War 
> <http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182> 
> figure: $421 billion and rising!  Over $6 billion of that came from my 
> state and over 5 million homes with renewable electricity could have 
> been built with that money.1  Instead of a preemptive war on a non 
> aggressor nation or a hype "War on Terror" or a "War on Drugs" lets have 
> a War on Aging and fund nano research to the tune of $40 billion (one 
> tenth the cost of the war) or so for starters.  
> 
> Does your general "Not true!" mean you think Bush a good leader for us? 
>  Does it mean you think war the best choice for achieving progress? 
>  Does it mean you think me seriously wrong or deceitful?  Or do you 
> perhaps think Bush impeachable for mixing politics and religion on the 
> stem cell issue?  -- Thomas

My opinion as a moderator that tagespolitik should have no channel time,
on this list. There are ample opportunities to discuss that elsewhere. 

http://www.google.com/search?q=impeachment
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=impeach+bush&btnG=Search
etc.

(My private opinion: don't waste time about talking impeachment online, just
get off the internets, and do it, for a change).

We now return to our usual programming.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue May  1 13:17:23 2007
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:17:23 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] i am a strange loop
In-Reply-To: <5366105b0704301958w14890af7vac8370eff3cafaab@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f21c22e30704290509u2de8c6b2gccedeb59aa5cdb7@mail.gmail.com>
	<200704291538.l3TFclbc019536@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
	<5366105b0704301958w14890af7vac8370eff3cafaab@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60705011317i25e60e53wf5fe24ef591fe0d5@mail.gmail.com>

Spike wrote:
> >
> > I noticed Hofstadter has a new book called I Am a Strange Loop.  Anyone read
> > it?

### I did. A bit of a disappointment. A nice explanation of Godel's
incompleteness theorem but otherwise hardly anything new for me.
Marred by Hofstadster's persistent claim that the self is an
"illusion" - but an "indispensable illusion", "necessary for
survival", and an illusion with great predictive power. This is a
quite bizarre terminology - after all, an illusion is usually a false
sensory perception, which is not conducive to survival, and does not
increase predictive power. The way I see it, for the most part that
perception which is indispensable for survival and does so through
allowing predictions, is the truth, or something reasonably close to
it. But I agree with the main thrust of the book, that level-crossing
self-reference is the essential part of the self.

Additional annoyances include paeans to compassion, occasional bits of
leftist politics, very poor treatment of the "inverted spectrum"
problem in the analysis of qualia, too much personal reminiscing, and
general goody-two-shoes-ness.

If you ever followed a recrudescence of the identity thread on this
list from start to end, you may have little to learn from the book.
Otherwise, it's a passable introductory text to the meaning of
(conscious) life.

Rafal

From velvethum at hotmail.com  Tue May  1 13:34:02 2007
From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:34:02 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?
References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><BD49FDFE-B8F1-430A-A711-EF98689E42E0@randallsquared.com><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><BAY140-DAV702CCFE52082EBF804E37A74D0@phx.gbl><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV1D42E35A3960227DB110EA74C0@phx.gbl>
	<09c201c78b8b$342b33b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <BAY140-DAV11DF5D1036B061A79FC6B7A7430@phx.gbl>

Lee:
>>> Well, not John Clark, IIRC, would go to the extreme that
>>> I, Robin Hanson, and many others would, namely, an
>>> instance of us would choose vaporization so that a recent
>>> duplicate frozen in the next room would get $10M, and
>>> we would be making that choice for *entirely* selfish
>>> reasons.

Heartland:
>> Frankly, that scares me, Lee. Please do not get offended by the analogy I'm
>> about
>> to make but I can't help but think that if we replace "$10M" with "opportunity
>> to
>> board alien spaceship hiding behind Hale-Bopp comet" the choice you would make,
>> it
>> seems to me, would be equally unwise as the choice made by 39 members of
>> Heaven's
>> Gate a decade ago.

Lee:
> A major difference is that there *was* no such alien spaceship :-)
> whereas there really are negotiable $10M checks!


Ah yes, the checks will be there, alright. It's just that it's going to be awfully
hard to cash them in the netherworld. :)


Heartland:
>> If you believe that preservation of memories = survival, and memories are
>> nothing
>> but strings, why shouldn't you be interested in how a string varies from moment
>> to
>> moment? How can you expect to know how to survive if you're not interested in
>> conditions necessary for survival?

Lee:
> I *am* interested in how "my string" varies, even varies from moment to moment.
> Assuming that "my string" is just a digital readout of my state, that is.  So
> long as
> it remains 99.99999999999% the same from moment to moment, that's okay.
> And even if it's only 99.99999% the same---in case I am disintegrated and a
> copy you made of me yesterday is teleported to my present location---that's
> still fine (provided that there is something in it for us Lee Corbins, e.g. a
> nice fat
> check---because I will not lose memories for nothing).


What if the strings were 98% the same from moment to moment? Please explain why
99.99999999999% would be okay and 52% or 1% would not be okay. Where's the dividing
line (give me a percentage) between "okay" and "not okay?" Also, quantify the time
interval between moments. Should we compare two strings every nanosecond,
microsecond, second, minute, hour or perhaps a week to make it more practical and
less annoying? Please justify all your choices.


Heartland:
>> What I would like to learn from you, above all else, is why you think memories
>> should matter so much? There are so many other things you could be focused on
>> preserving into the future. Why memories, let alone your memories?

Lee's answer:
> Some simple thought experiments may suffice for an answer.  Let's suppose that
> tomorrow morning you woke up with *my* memories and I woke up with *yours*.
> (An alien trickster who knows an incredible amount about how brains work has
> been very busy with his nanotechnological devices.)  What would happen?


Ha, I think I've heard this tune before. :) I vow to be more thorough in my
investigation this time.

Lee:
> Here is what would happen.  A being (whose identity
> I am not going to beg yet) awakes in Santa Clara California and says to himself
> "What the hell am I doing here?  I remember going to bed last night.  I am
> Slawomir, because I remember being him yesterday, but now it seems I have
> a new body".  This is *exactly* what he would say when questioned by the
> authorities.  In an exactly similar way, the story would be repeated where you
> live:  I would wake up in your body and be wont to say things like "what the
> hell happened?  Where am I?  Whose body and whose house is this??".

This is how it would go down, yes.

Lee:
> When we talked on the phone, we would agree that we had exchanged *bodies*
> not memories. The creature in Santa Clara California would want the old Slawomir
> body back (I assure you), and rightfully consider it *his* body!
>
> Clear enough?

Not yet.

Lee:
> Don't you agree that it is our memories that determine who
> we think we are (and, I go on to claim, who we in fact are).

Yes. (surprised?)
But if I prefer "memory content" instead of "memories" as a determinant of who we
are because "memory content" or just "memory" implies also skills, beliefs, and
patterns of perception, not just recollections of past events.

At this point you still have not answered the question I was really asking so let
me ask it again using different words:

Why do you think preserving *who we are* matters? There are so many other things 
you could be focused on
preserving into the future so why it is most important to preserve who we are, let 
alone who *you* are?

H.


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  1 13:43:59 2007
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 21:43:59 +0100
Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress
In-Reply-To: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net>
References: <ee50357e0705010008s218c9720y25917fa1b558c2f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0705011343j5581e19ajb1c73ea512c20280@mail.gmail.com>

On 5/1/07, Thomas wrote:
> That's a good point, but I didn't say all the war funding diminished
> medical and technological progress.  Still, these increased developments
> cannot be vast enough to justify the deaths and the enormous
> disproportion of the allocations.  I doubt this war will prove as
> proportionally fruitful for progress as WWII.  We had much better
> leadership then.
>
<snip>
>
> Does your general "Not true!" mean you think Bush a good leader for us?
>  Does it mean you think war the best choice for achieving progress?
>  Does it mean you think me seriously wrong or deceitful?  Or do you
> perhaps think Bush impeachable for mixing politics and religion on the
> stem cell issue?  -- Thomas
>


I don't do political discussion.  So Bush is irrelevant to my comments.

And my comments are not intended to justify any war.

Just the facts. Many people are so overpowered by the horror of war
that they refuse to recognise that many technical advances come out of
the pressure cooker of wartime.
WWII was remarkable in this respect.

A bit of googling will bring out a list of stuff that the current war
is producing. Some pretty unbelievable stuff is in there. Driverless
cars, for dog's sake!

See:  <http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/military.html>

Darpa projects include robot vehicles, computer language translation,
unmanned air
vehicles for observation and combat, swarms of bot devices, laser
weapons, remote surgery, many battlefield medical improvements, etc.

Agreed, wars concentrate on weapons technology. But radar was weapons
tech, so was jet planes, so was O&M for controlling factory
production. When the war stops, all the tech gets reused for
civilians.

It doesn't justify the war or the many deaths. But new tech arrives
quicker when a nation is perceived as being in a fight for survival.


BillK

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue May  1 15:11:05 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 18:11:05 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Back to Causes of War
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070501180704.04180df0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 09:35 AM 5/1/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>Keith---in that amazing post that could launch a thousand threads---wrote

snip

> >
> > We are just working from such different data bases that I think I should
> > not respond again until you have read the Azar Gat paper.  Let me know
> > when you have.
> >
> > http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf
>
>Okay, I read it. And it didn't take 15 minutes:  I had to ponder a lot of the
>paragraphs  :-)
>
>For me, the most striking thing about the paper was his relentless 
>illustration
>of the *normal* condition of human tribes, namely to be at constant war
>with one another.

snip

Not entirely constant.  Modulated by conditions, since war is, as he points 
out, only one conditional strategy.

>What Gat does is very thoroughly detail the behavior of human groups
>in the EEA and in modern primitive societies still struggling under non-
>colonial control by the civilized powers.
>
>The real question (not addressed at all by this paper whose focus is
>entirely as I just stated) is Why are modern nations so *peaceful*?

It is the converse of Gat's discussion, bottom of page 7 and top of page 8.

******

"The main point of all this is that resource competition and conflict 
existed in most
hunter-gatherer societies; but how significant they were, how they ranked 
in comparison to
other possible reasons for conflict, and what resource specifically was 
mostly in conflict -
depended on the particular conditions of the human and natural environment 
in question.
Scarcities and stresses, and hence the causes and occurrence of conflict, 
varied. The
concept of 'territoriality', which was brought to the fore in the 1960s by 
Ardrey (1966),
Page 8
Lorenz (1966), and Tinbergen (1968), has been more subtly defined in this 
light. Like
aggression, territoriality is not a blind instinct. It is subservient to 
the evolutionary
calculus, especially in humans, whose habitats are so diverse. Among 
hunter-gatherers,
territories vary dramatically in size - territorial behaviour itself can 
gain or lose in
significance - in direct relation to the resources and resource 
competition. The same
applies to population density, another popular explanation in the 1960s for 
violence. In
other than the most extreme cases,

_it [violence] is mainly in relation to resource scarcity and hence as a 
factor in resource competition_

that population density would function as a trigger for
fighting. Otherwise, Tokyo and the Netherlands would have been among the 
most violent
places on earth."

******
(In carefully rereading this, I need to acknowledge that Gat anticipated my 
formulation of "income per capita.")

>And the original main purpose of this thread and its predecessors was
>to address the causes of all wars, not just primitive fighting.
>
>I *will* summarize what I have written here on the topic.  First, civilized
>societies are not necessarily more peaceful, even the literate ones!  E.g. the
>Maya or the proto-nations and nations of Western Europe 500 AD -
>1500 AD  Sometimes peace was establish in the old days---as in
>approximately 100 AD - 180 AD---when some fairly reasonable empire
>could maintain it (by force).
>
>Second, a sea-change seems to have overcome the West around 1700 or
>1800:  gone were the constant wars of preceding generations. Especially
>per capita, wars became fewer and fewer over time.  Go graph the number
>of wars and the amount of blood shed between England and France:  it
>monotonically decreases from 1000 AD to 1815, and then stops altogether.
>(Of course there were fluctuations, but my point is that the wars really did
>become fewer over the centuries and of less severity.)  What caused this
>sea-change?

You need to consider what else happened over this time.  There was a huge 
growth of income over this period of time, and some of the time even a 
growth in income per capita.

>My answer is that it simply became more profitable to maintain peace than
>to try to plunder adjacent nations. For one thing, there was less comparative
>plunder than ever before (compared to the wealth of generating your own),
>and another thing, the dang wars just got too expensive and the ability of
>the other nation to inflict reciprocal damage kept growing.  So an era
>of game-theoretic cooperation has emerged.
>
>Three, the causes of modern era war are too numerous to allow generalization.
>Keith sometimes said that population pressure causes war,

That not exactly the case.

"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]"

>and it is true that
>high population growth in modern nations *facilitates* war, but it doesn't
>cause it.  For example, the high birth rates in Germany, England, and France
>before WWI made for aggressive nations in two ways:  first, young people
>are usually quite willing and able to go to war (until 1950 or so in the 
>West);
>they have the vitality and the group instinct I submit, and second, they
>provide enough cannon fodder to make the wars a go.
>
>Keith sometimes said that it was 'grim prospects' that caused war.

Again not exactly that simple.  Grim prospects are sensed.  They are *part* 
of a causation chain.

In the EEA (and even today) it was usually population growth that led to 
grim prospects.

Sensing grim prospects turned up the average population gain on xenophobic 
memes.

High levels of xenophobic memes caused war violence.

>Certainly
>that is a factor, maybe a major factor, in the EEA as Professor Gat documents.
>And *sometimes* it is a contributing factor in modern wars, if taken not too
>literally.  Again WWI affords a great example:  the English were scared to
>death that the Germans would overtake them economically (1914 in fact
>was the very first year in which this occurred---see "The Illusion of 
>Victory",
>a rather new book by Thomas Fleming).  And the Germans were scared to
>death that Russia and the Slavs in general were going to surpass them in a
>variety of ways.  Paul Johnson in "Modern Times" states this as a attitudinal
>fact among the German intelligencia apparently stemming from various
>wacked-out German philosophers.

I should add that fear of others *is* the result of xenophobic memes (such 
as the English fearing the Germans or the Germans fearing the Russians and 
Slavs).

>But throughout pre-modern times in the last millenium, a typical cause of
>war was one prince's avarice towards the domains of his neighbors. Most
>of the English-French wars were of this kind, for example, as were the
>endless wars between the various Italian city states. Another typical
>cause was vast population movement---the Avars or the Huns or someone
>would be on the move (chased by another tribe even more formidable) and
>the poor Romans or anyone else within range had to bear the consequences.
>
>Yet none of these explanations account for all modern wars---exceptions
>can be found for any and all of them. E.g. the Great Patriotic war, which
>included the largest and most deadly battles ever fought,  was caused
>entirely by one man's irrational urges and his warped philosophy.

I think you put too much causation on particular people and too little on 
the situation that allowed their madness to flourish.

Consider forest fires as an analogy.  You can classify fires by how they 
were started, lightening, careless campers, power lines sparking and 
aircraft crashes.  You can also say a lot about the influence of the 
weather, with forest fires being more likely when the temperature is high, 
the humidity low and gusty winds.

But the ultimate reason you get a forest fire is the slow accumulation of fuel.

The ultimate reason you get a war is the slow accumulation of people (in 
excess of what the economy can support).  Slow it down till the economic 
growth is as high or higher than the population growth and no wars.

Since you read Gat's excellent paper, I should get you to read 
"Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War."  It should not take 
longer than Gat's paper to read.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296

There is a close print version in _Mankind Quarterly_ last summer.

Incidentally, where you mention "young people are usually quite willing and 
able to go to war," this is the "excess males" causation theory of war.  I 
forget what the proposed threshold was, but China (due to selective 
abortion) is way above the point these researchers said would cause a 
war.  The EP model say China will not be inclined to start a war as long as 
its population is experiencing a growth in income per capita.

Of course, China could get into a war if it were attacked.  Before you say 
that's impossible, consider Pearl Harbor.

Keith Henson





From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue May  1 16:19:37 2007
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:19:37 +1000
Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism and
	Religion in Second Life
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070501102134.03ae5df0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070501102134.03ae5df0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30705011619x4f705267ube857bda0f0cb059@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/05/07, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

"Another problem is how to improve ourselves without getting completely
> lost.
> Today the mental modules at the root of our personalities change slowly if
> at
> all.  When our deepest desires can be quickly modified with trivial
> effort, how
> much of us will survive?  The results of modifying ourselves could be as
> tragic
> as being modified by others.*  This and nanotechnology based "super dope"
> that
> make everyone happy but without ambition (or even the desire to eat) are
> among
> the subtle dangers we face.  It is time for those of us who are concerned
> about
> our futures to start thinking about these problems."
>

The crude technology will allow us to become happy without ambition - we
have that in currently available drugs. The more refined technology will
allow to become happy *with* ambition. If you could modify yourself so that
you experience pleasure sitting around doing nothing or the same amount of
pleasure doing something that, all else being equal, you consider more
worthwhile than sitting around doing nothing, which would you you choose?

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070502/b16ec121/attachment.html 

From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue May  1 16:25:58 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:25:58 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] i am a strange loop
References: <f21c22e30704290509u2de8c6b2gccedeb59aa5cdb7@mail.gmail.com><200704291538.l3TFclbc019536@andromeda.ziaspace.com><5366105b0704301958w14890af7vac8370eff3cafaab@mail.gmail.com>
	<7641ddc60705011317i25e60e53wf5fe24ef591fe0d5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0ab401c78c48$1cf264d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Rafal:  Thanks for the terrific review!

Lee

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] i am a strange loop


> Spike wrote:
>> >
>> > I noticed Hofstadter has a new book called I Am a Strange Loop.  Anyone read
>> > it?
> 
> ### I did. A bit of a disappointment. A nice explanation of Godel's
> incompleteness theorem but otherwise hardly anything new for me.
> Marred by Hofstadster's persistent claim that the self is an
> "illusion" - but an "indispensable illusion", "necessary for
> survival", and an illusion with great predictive power. This is a
> quite bizarre terminology - after all, an illusion is usually a false
> sensory perception, which is not conducive to survival, and does not
> increase predictive power. The way I see it, for the most part that
> perception which is indispensable for survival and does so through
> allowing predictions, is the truth, or something reasonably close to
> it. But I agree with the main thrust of the book, that level-crossing
> self-reference is the essential part of the self.
> 
> Additional annoyances include paeans to compassion, occasional bits of
> leftist politics, very poor treatment of the "inverted spectrum"
> problem in the analysis of qualia, too much personal reminiscing, and
> general goody-two-shoes-ness.
> 
> If you ever followed a recrudescence of the identity thread on this
> list from start to end, you may have little to learn from the book.
> Otherwise, it's a passable introductory text to the meaning of
> (conscious) life.
> 
> Rafal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>

From neptune at superlink.net  Tue May  1 16:56:45 2007
From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 19:56:45 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress
Message-ID: <004001c78c4c$60ab7140$09893cd1@pavilion>

On Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:08 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Thomas wrote:
> <snip>
>> Not completely off-topic since many of Bush's efforts have worked
>> against the extropian, especially funding war at the expense of
>> medical
>> and technological progress.
>
> Not true!
> I have supported the proposition before that war funding vastly
> increases technological and medical developments. Look at all the
> stuff DARPA is funding.
> WWII certainly generated a great leap forward in technology and
> medicine.
> (The downside, of course, is that war tends to kill a lot of people).
>
> Agreed that Bush has opposed funding some stem cell research, but that
> was on religious grounds, nothing to do with the war funding.

To fund the war, one must use one of three possible means: taxation,
inflation, or borrowing (i.e., deficit spending).  All of these mean
less wealth for other purposes.  Now it's true that some war spending
will go to research and development and some of that might lead to
progress in various fields.  (Even so, I suspect most such R&D spending
will be on new ways for the government to hurt or kill people, and that
is probably the least extropian use I can think of.)  However, it's
merely falling for the broken window fallacy to believe that this has an
overall benefit.  In other words, the benefit must be weighed against
the cost -- and the cost is not just people being killed or injured
(though, that alone, is the most serious cost of war).

Were this not so, then you should advocate a society constantly at war.
Such as society would have, by this view, the most technological and
economic progress over any alternatives.

Regards,

Dan


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue May  1 17:45:04 2007
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 20:45:04 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Back to Causes of War
In-Reply-To: <07ab01c7899a$20e16600$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070427191216.046d48e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070501200547.02c281f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

At 06:34 AM 4/28/2007 -0700, Lee wrote:
>Keith writes in a reply to BillK

snip

> > No.  And there should be evidence.  You should see a drop in wars after a
> > major plagues because the drop in population should make for a brighter
> > (less economically stressed) future for those who are left.
>
>I will try to check it out. Well documented causes exist for the
>wars between England and France that broke out in the 1300s.
>The plague came later (1346) but I don't think slowed the war
>any except for a bit of financial exhaustion among the rulers.
>The 15th century was still very war-prone in Europe.

One of the things you need to keep in mind is how fast the population 
rebounded.  The Black Death killed about 25% of the European population at 
the time.  As a guess the dip recovered in a generation or so since humans 
have the ability to double (or more) per generation.

Hungary recovered in less than 50 years from 25% of their population being 
killed in wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muhi

Keith


From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue May  1 17:36:11 2007
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 20:36:11 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism
Message-ID: <380-2200753203611342@M2W015.mail2web.com>

While I was away at a conference there was some discussion about posthumans
and posthumanism.  In my research in preparing my paper on BioArt, many of
the theoreticians and curators I spoke with referred to the posthuman and
discounted the transhuman (including isms).  I have known for some time
that there is an academic dismissing of transhumanism and an embracing of
posthumanism, in large part due to Kathryn Hayles book which does not cover
transhumanism.  This book also does not mention Max's published article "On
Becoming Posthuman" and also importantly Robert Peppernell who wrote "The
Posthuman Condition."  I know that UK professors are annoyed at Hayles'
borrowing ideas from Pepperell and not recognizing him.  

Many of the reasons for this and I'd like to discuss it with you all in
this thread. First I'd like to hear your thoughts if you have any.

Thanks,
Natasha


--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft? Windows? and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting




From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue May  1 17:59:26 2007
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 20:59:26 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future?.
In-Reply-To: <00ba01c78b6b$b62ccf60$dc0a4e0c@MyComputer>
References: <640411.85381.qm@web37402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<076f01c78914$571c6b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<F2950714-099C-4700-AE5E-B37DE6DBD374@randallsquared.com>
	<07a201c78995$38a5c970$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<1A7A74FD-3240-435A-B117-6F3B0B522232@randallsquared.com>
	<083c01c78a08$a753b1c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<E4E96CD3-43A7-4A1F-BA7A-86656BC874E2@randallsquared.com>
	<086701c78a4b$33d7cef0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070429135619.0236cb40@satx.rr.com>
	<00ba01c78b6b$b62ccf60$dc0a4e0c@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <62c14240705011759y2d5a77c2l579e1ad8284268c3@mail.gmail.com>

On 4/30/07, John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
> managed to bring you into existence? Why does randomness and stupidity beat
> intelligence?

If you ever get a good answer to that question, please be sure to post
it to this list - I'm sure many of us would be interested...

From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Tue May  1 17:53:09 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 18:53:09 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] What's the Greatest Innovation?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501132526.0228aba8@satx.rr.com>
References: <200705011711.l41HB0gC006942@ms-smtp-01.texas.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20070501132526.0228aba8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4637E0F5.8040502@comcast.net>



Damien Broderick wrote:
> I like Frank Wilczek's reply:
>
> The greatest innovation in physics, and I think in all of science, 
> was the discovery that important behaviour of natural objects can be 
> described with mathematical precision.
Yes, I really like this too, as long as you add "The greatest innovation 
in all of science" TO DATE.

And as I'm always claiming, I believe we are on the verge of the 
scientific achievement that will surpass this one.

True, mathematics can powerfully represent the behavior of the 
universe.  And it can also represent or model its phenomenal qualities 
(i.e. 0=green, 1=red).  But obviously such abstract modeling in no way 
captures what is really important about red, green, and the difference 
between them and all the other phenomenal (spiritual, if you will) 
properties our brain uses to represent our phenomenal conscious knowledge.

Once we scientifically finally pierce this spiritual veil and start 
effing and sharing these ineffable properties, we will finally be able 
to alter the universe, starting with the expansion of our brain, in such 
a way that our spirits (our phenomenal knowledge of ourselves, that has 
no referent in reality.) will finally break out of these mortal spirit 
prison walls that is our skull.  No longer will the rest of the universe 
be ineffable because our abstract mathematical representation will 
finally be grounded in truly phenomenal scientifically demonstrable reality.

Any such scientific achievement will have a way more dramatic effect on 
the world than anything else TO DATE don't you think?

Brent Allsop



From nvitamore at austin.rr.com  Tue May  1 16:23:53 2007
From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 19:23:53 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] Post-human book - Italian
Message-ID: <380-22007521232353594@M2W013.mail2web.com>

Does anyone have a few moments to translate Italian?

thanks,
Natasha

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web




From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Tue May  1 18:51:16 2007
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 19:51:16 -0600
Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <380-2200753203611342@M2W015.mail2web.com>
References: <380-2200753203611342@M2W015.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <4637EE94.3020902@comcast.net>



Natasha,

This would be a great example that could demonstrate the power of the 
Canonizer.  Through a canonization process, everyone could propose and 
discover the facts and things everyone agreed on.  These could be wikied 
into the "agreement statement" on this contentious topic (i.e. anyone 
that objects to a particular piece of information means it must be put 
in some sub POV statement).  Then everyone could work to wiki the 
position statements in the appropriate tree structure below the 
agreement statement so that all POV camps and sub camps could be 
adequately represented.  Then everyone could "join" or support the 
position statements that most appropriately included their POV on this 
issue.

Once we saw all relevant support by all the relevant parties, for 
precisely what they believed on such an issue, we could quantitatively 
determine and specify with authority just what the correct and justified 
terminology is right?  If only us extropians started out joining camps, 
you could point out our authoritative reasons and beliefs to these 
academics, and if they disagree, they would be free to add their own POV 
so it can all be fairly represented.  If they refused to participate, 
then oh well, we win right?

I have a prototype of all the structured wiki functionality already 
running at http://test.canonizer.com.  And I bet I'll have the support 
system so people can "join" (or support or vote for) their camps before 
any position statements were fully developed.

Natasha, do you (or anyone else) have some type of beginning write up, 
even if only crude and incomplete, that specifies some of the facts and 
your POV that we could start with?  We could even start with what you've 
said on the issue here.

Brent Allsop



nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:
> While I was away at a conference there was some discussion about posthumans
> and posthumanism.  In my research in preparing my paper on BioArt, many of
> the theoreticians and curators I spoke with referred to the posthuman and
> discounted the transhuman (including isms).  I have known for some time
> that there is an academic dismissing of transhumanism and an embracing of
> posthumanism, in large part due to Kathryn Hayles book which does not cover
> transhumanism.  This book also does not mention Max's published article "On
> Becoming Posthuman" and also importantly Robert Peppernell who wrote "The
> Posthuman Condition."  I know that UK professors are annoyed at Hayles'
> borrowing ideas from Pepperell and not recognizing him.  
>
> Many of the reasons for this and I'd like to discuss it with you all in
> this thread. First I'd like to hear your thoughts if you have any.
>
> Thanks,
> Natasha
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft? Windows? and Linux web and application
> hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>   


From jonkc at att.net  Tue May  1 20:30:39 2007
From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 23:30:39 -0400
Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?.
References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><BD49FDFE-B8F1-430A-A711-EF98689E42E0@randallsquared.com><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><BAY140-DAV702CCFE52082EBF804E37A74D0@phx.gbl><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV1D42E35A3960227DB110EA74C0@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704301705q78dbe029q3fec0beba63966c3@mail.gmail.com><BAY140-DAV12E93FB0260CEEBCD15CAFA7430@phx.gbl><f21c22e30704301925j595ef657t388b0900d3d7e81@mail.gmail.com>
	<BAY140-DAV10D45D4CBBACA524E86FA6A7430@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer>

Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote:

> Just because I-now thinks I-before survived does not cause "I-before
> survived" statement to be true.

It is of course possible that my subjective experience could be disconnected
from reality, that dog I'm looking at might not objectively exist, I could
be having a hallucination; but you go much further. According to you I don't
even think I see a dog, I just think I think I see a dog. I don't feel pain
when I put my hand in that fire, I just think I think I feel pain when I put
my hand in that fire.. I can't think, I just think I think. I'm not really
alive, I just think I'm alive

A bigger load of crap I've never seen! I think.

> Many centuries ago someone believed Sun revolved around Earth.

Painting yourself as the heroic revolutionary just doesn't work very well
when the idea you are peddling is the conventional one believed by
generations of schoolchildren. To say your idea is wrong would be
giving it too much credit, it's not even that, it's gibberish;
popular gibberish to be sure but gibberish nevertheless.

  John K Clark



From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue May  1 21:31:12 2007
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 21:31:12 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <380-2200753203611342@M2W015.mail2web.com>
References: <380-2200753203611342@M2W015.mail2web.com>
Message-ID: <46381410.20305@mac.com>

nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:
> While I was away at a conference there was some discussion about posthumans
> and posthumanism.  In my research in preparing my paper on BioArt, many of
> the theoreticians and curators I spoke with referred to the posthuman and
> discounted the transhuman (including isms).  I have known for some time
> that there is an academic dismissing of transhumanism and an embracing of
> posthumanism, in large part due to Kathryn Hayles book which does not cover
> transhumanism.  This book also does not mention Max's published article "On
> Becoming Posthuman" and also importantly Robert Peppernell who wrote "The
> Posthuman Condition."  I know that UK professors are annoyed at Hayles'
> borrowing ideas from Pepperell and not recognizing him.  
>
> Many of the reasons for this and I'd like to discuss it with you all in
> this thread. First I'd like to hear your thoughts if you have any.
>   

I don't have many on this topic as I have not read some of the works you 
mentioned.  It does seem as if many have less trouble creating 
interesting posthuman imaginings than imagining how we get there from 
here.  To get there from here we much go through transhumanism.   Unless 
of course Eliezer or someone similar creates the Friendly AI that 
uplifts us pretty much in one go.  But I don't believe that will work.  
It is like ultra high  acceleration.  There is no bridge, no 
development, no growing into between who you are, much less who the vast 
majority is, and there in such a scenario.   I don't think many would 
survive or survive with any meaningful sense of continuity.

- samantha


From spike66 at comcast.net  Tue May  1 21:31:43 2007
From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 21:31:43 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future?.
In-Reply-To: <094401c78ae9$02d40190$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
Message-ID: <200705020451.l424pK7D002267@andromeda.ziaspace.com>


> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
...
> 
> When I am uploaded, it'll be me iff the similarity is sufficient.
...
 Lee

Lee it would not hurt to remind your non-mathematically oriented readers
that 

iff = if and only if.

spike







From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue May  1 21:59:35 2007
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 23:59:35 -0500
Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future?.
In-Reply-To: <200705020451.l424pK7D002267@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <094401c78ae9$02d40190$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<200705020451.l424pK7D002267@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501235842.022401d8@satx.rr.com>

At 09:31 PM 5/1/2007 -0700, spike wrote:

>iff = if and only if.

Logical, Captain. But does ifo = if only?

ifo!



From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue May  1 22:03:54 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:03:54 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?
References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><BD49FDFE-B8F1-430A-A711-EF98689E42E0@randallsquared.com><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><BAY140-DAV702CCFE52082EBF804E37A74D0@phx.gbl><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><BAY140-DAV1D42E35A3960227DB110EA74C0@phx.gbl>
	<09c201c78b8b$342b33b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>
	<BAY140-DAV11DF5D1036B061A79FC6B7A7430@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <0ac701c78c77$dfd7d7d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Heartland writes

> Lee:
>> I *am* interested in how "my string" varies, even varies from
>> moment to moment. Assuming that "my string" is just a
>> digital readout of my state, that is.  So long as it remains
>> 99.99999999999% the same from moment to moment,
>> that's okay. And even if it's only 99.99999% the same---
>> in case I am disintegrated and a copy you made of me
>> yesterday is teleported to my present location---that's
>> still fine (provided that there is something in it for us
>> Lee Corbins, e.g. a nice fat
>> check---because I will not lose memories for nothing).
> 
> 
> What if the strings were 98% the same from moment to moment?
> Please explain why 99.99999999999% would be okay and 52%
> or 1% would not be okay.

Yikes!  Are you kidding?  I would "estimate" that maybe around
age 17 the legal entity known as Lee Corbin had 50% of the
core memories that make me who I am.  To be summarily 
replaced by a 17-year old version of me would be, in my calculus,
like dying by about one-half.  From "moment to moment" is a
very rough period of time, but the idea is that I should remain
very much the same person for years and years.

> Where's the dividing line (give me a percentage) between "okay"
> and "not okay?" Also, quantify the time interval between moments.

I have now explained the basic meaning of those. Since identity
*is* memory, then it's a tautology that to the degree I lose some
I become someone else. If it was not some very high figure like
99.99999999999% from moment to moment, then I would too
rapidly become someone else.  Even as it is, I am annoyed that
I am rapidly (over the decades) becoming someone else.

> Should we compare two strings every nanosecond, microsecond,
> second, minute, hour or perhaps a week to make it more practical
> and less annoying? Please justify all your choices.

Ah, when you wrote above "Where's the dividing line (give me a
percentage)" I was afraid that this was just another symptom of
your apparent belief that life and death is like 1 and 0, and that
there are sharp dividing lines.  There are not.  To what degree
is the Ship of Theseus not the same ship after a number of years?
We know that *eventually* --- were it slowly transformed into
the Queen Mary --- that it would be silly to think of it as the same
ship. Yet there can be no absolute dividing line (unless you believe
in something quite akin to souls).

> Lee:
>> When we talked on the phone, we would agree that we had exchanged *bodies*
>> not memories. The creature in Santa Clara California would want the old Slawomir
>> body back (I assure you), and rightfully consider it *his* body!
>>
>> Clear enough?
> 
> Not yet.

Eh?  Why not.  This seems simple.  If we had a 100% swap of memories,
then I would be in your body, and vice versa. What is unclear?

> Lee:
>> Don't you agree that it is our memories that determine who
>> we think we are (and, I go on to claim, who we in fact are).
> 
> Yes. (surprised?)
> But if I prefer "memory content" instead of "memories" as a determinant of who we
> are because "memory content" or just "memory" implies also skills, beliefs, and
> patterns of perception, not just recollections of past events.

Yes;  I have not been especially consistent myself on to what degree
these other things are important.  But how important to *identity*
are they?  Consider if you lost some.  You would then seek medical
advice and complain that *you* had lost these patterns.  An exactly
similar scenario about swapping entire memory can be easily seen:
the Slawomir complaints would issue from wherever the bulk of the
Slawomir memories were.  Not from where the skill set went.

To press the point, if I woke up tomorrow with your beliefs, then
(except for the peculiar aspect that I could not recall their development),
I would suppose that I had somehow abruptly changed my mind, that's
all.

> At this point you still have not answered the question I was really asking so let
> me ask it again using different words:
> 
> Why do you think preserving *who we are* matters? There
> are so many other things you could be focused on preserving
> into the future so why it is most important to preserve who
> we are, let alone who *you* are?

Ya know, it's just this prejudice I have, ya see?  I want to stick
around a while, and that means that I have to get more runtime,
and that means that my memories must be encased in a running
process somewhere sometime.

Lee


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue May  1 22:08:35 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:08:35 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress
References: <ee50357e0705010008s218c9720y25917fa1b558c2f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

BillK writes

> I just looked at the Cost of War 
> <http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182> 
> figure: $421 billion and rising!  Over $6 billion of that came from my 
> state and over 5 million homes with renewable electricity could have 
> been built with that money.1  Instead of a preemptive war on a non 
> aggressor nation or a hype "War on Terror" or a "War on Drugs" lets have 
> a War on Aging and fund nano research to the tune of $40 billion (one 
> tenth the cost of the war) or so for starters.  

Another way to look at the facts is to say that the Defense Department
takes about 4% of GNP and entitlements about 10% of GNP. Sorry
I don't have links for that---but I believe that to be approximately
correct.

And of course, the so-called "aggressor war" is based upon the 
perception (rightly or wrongly) that after Al Qaeda wins in Iraq,
to the great glee of the half of America that is more scared of
the Bush and Christian agenda, then Al Qaeda will get a huge
surge of new recruits.  History loves a winner. And then we'll
see if the war just quietly goes away.

Lee


From lcorbin at rawbw.com  Tue May  1 22:31:57 2007
From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:31:57 -0700
Subject: [extropy-chat] Back to Causes of War
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070427183950.042a2270@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070428134420.03fc0dd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
	<5.1.0.14.0.20070501160428.0406a860@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
Message-ID: <0ad801c78c7b$63eb75b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677>

Keith writes, quoting Gat

> "The main point of all this is that resource competition and conflict 
> existed in most
> hunter-gatherer societies; but how significant they were, how they ranked 
> in comparison to
> other possible reasons for conflict, and what resource specifically was 
> mostly in conflict -
> depended on the particular conditions of the human and natural environment 
> in question.
> Scarcities and stresses, and hence the causes and occurrence of conflict, 
> varied. The
> concept of 'territoriality', which was brought to the fore in the 1960s by 
> Ardrey (1966),
> Page 8
> Lorenz (1966), and Tinbergen (1968), has been more subtly defined in this 
> light. Like
> aggression, territoriality is not a blind instinct. It is subservient to 
> the evolutionary
> calculus, especially in humans, whose habitats are so diverse. Among 
> hunter-gatherers,
> territories vary dramatically in size - territorial behaviour itself can 
> gain or lose in
> significance - in direct relation to the resources and resource 
> competition. The same
> applies to population density, another popular explanation in the 1960s for 
> violence. In
> other than the most extreme cases,
> 
> _it [violence] is mainly in relation to resource scarcity and hence as a 
> factor in resource competition_
> 
> that population density would function as a trigger for fighting.
> Otherwise, Tokyo and the Netherlands would have been
> among the most violent places on earth."

Yes, those places would today soon revert to a "Lord of 
the Flies" scenario. But I *thought* that our inquiry was
more general, namely into the causes---proximal or distal
---of war throughout history.

>>And the original main purpose of this thread and its predecessors was
>>to address the causes of all wars, not just primitive fighting.
>>
>>I *will* summarize what I have written here on the topic.  First, civilized
>>societies are not necessarily more peaceful, even the literate ones!  E.g. the
>>Maya or the proto-nations and nations of Western Europe 500 AD -
>>1500 AD  Sometimes peace was establish in the old days---as in
>>approximately 100 AD - 180 AD---when some fairly reasonable empire
>>could maintain it (by force).
>>
>>Second, a sea-change seems to have overcome the West around 1700 or
>>1800:  gone were the constant wars of preceding generations. Especially
>>per capita, wars became fewer and fewer over time.  Go graph the number
>>of wars and the amount of blood shed between England and France:  it
>>monotonically decreases from 1000 AD to 1815, and then stops altogether.
>>(Of course there were fluctuations, but my point is that the wars really did
>>become fewer over the centuries and of less severity.)  What caused this
>>sea-change?
> 
> You need to consider what else happened over this time.  There was a huge 
> growth of income over this period of time, and some of the time even a 
> growth in income per capita.

Yes, of course.  Such growth went hand in hand with leaders of
nations being less rapacious. 

>>My answer is that it simply became more profitable to maintain peace than
>>to try to plunder adjacent nations. For one thing, there was less comparative
>>plunder than ever before (compared to the wealth of generating your own),
>>and another thing, the dang wars just got too expensive and the ability of
>>the other nation to inflict reciprocal damage kept growing.  So an era
>>of game-theoretic cooperation has emerged.
>>
>>Three, the causes of modern era war are too numerous to allow generalization.
>>Keith sometimes said that population pressure causes war,
> 
> That not exactly the case.
> 
> "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]"

Au contraire, it *is* exactly the case.  Heinlein is quite wrong.  While falling
resources per capita is *one* reason indeed, you have been giving the
impression, and Heinlein certainly does above, that it is the *sole* cause.
It's not, as I have demonstrated with example after example.  Sometimes
very prosperous nations with very good prospects go to war because their
leaders get greedy, or they are playing a game of international one-
upsmanship, or they simply want to expand their nation's territory at
the expense of smaller weaker adjacent nations.

>>and it is true that
>>high population growth in modern nations *facilitates* war, but it doesn't
>>cause it.  For example, the high birth rates in Germany, England, and France
>>before WWI made for aggressive nations in two ways:  first, young people
>>are usually quite willing and able to go to war (until 1950 or so in the 
>>West);
>>they have the vitality and the group instinct I submit, and second, they
>>provide enough cannon fodder to make the wars a go.
>>
>>Keith sometimes said that it was 'grim prospects' that caused war.
> 
> Again not exactly that simple.  Grim prospects are sensed.  They are *part* 
> of a causation chain.

Yes.

> In the EEA (and even today) it was usually population growth that led to 
> grim prospects.
> 
> Sensing grim prospects turned up the average population gain on xenophobic 
> memes.
> 
> High levels of xenophobic memes caused war violence.

But this is *not* the only mechanism, at least since we've left the EEA.
As I said,

>>Certainly
>>that is a factor, maybe a major factor, in the EEA as Professor Gat documents.
>>And *sometimes* it is a contributing factor in modern wars, if taken not too
>>literally.  Again WWI affords a great example:  the English were scared to
>>death that the Germans would overtake them economically (1914 in fact
>>was the very first year in which this occurred---see "The Illusion of 
>>Victory",
>>a rather new book by Thomas Fleming).  And the Germans were scared to
>>death that Russia and the Slavs in general were going to surpass them in a
>>variety of ways.  Paul Johnson in "Modern Times" states this as a attitudinal
>>fact among the German intelligencia apparently stemming from various
>>wacked-out German philosophers.
> 
> I should add that fear of others *is* the result of xenophobic memes (such 
> as the English fearing the Germans or the Germans fearing the Russians and 
> Slavs).

Yes, but your tone implies that this is to be considered a bad thing.
Of course, it would be relatively heavenly if a magic wand were
passed over the Earth, and there was no xenophobia.  But it wouldn't
last long, becuse it's not an ESS. Sooner or later some gang would
get going, and we'd be right back to Sargon I and the first empires.
Realistically, the main thing about xenophobic genes is that you don't
want *your side* to lose them, or into the dustbin of history you go.
Or are going, like now.

>>But throughout pre-modern times in the last millenium, a ty