From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 1 00:05:19 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 10:05:19 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? (was Type vs. instance...) In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 01/05/07, Heartland wrote: This *is* about survival. Why would I care at all about any of this if it > wasn't > about survival? You haven't answered yet (that I have noticed) what you would do if medical science discovered that you didn't actually survive a situation you hitherto believed harmless, such as falling asleep or being photographed by a traffic camera. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 00:15:26 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:15:26 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070427155653.0230c178@satx.rr.com><200704290451.l3T4ppht015948@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070429113755.02274c98@satx.rr.com><009601c78a81$f49eca90$d9074e0c@MyComputer><093701c78ae6$33d42200$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008001c78b42$cae8df30$41074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <09a601c78b86$46c91410$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> John writes > "Lee Corbin" > >> I would say that we could familiarize someone with all that is known about >> Napoleon (which is far, far short of what the actual historical Napoleon >> knew about himself), then hypnotize this actor to believe that he is the >> real Napoleon. But then we would *not* have resurrected the real McCoy. > > A good thought experiment should only investigate one thing at a time or > things become too muddy to be useful. Up to now we have investigated a > perfect copy, or at least as perfect as Mr. Hinesburg allows. But now you > start talking about a crappy copy, a very crappy copy indeed.... Yes, sorry---it could clearly have been done with fewer words. > I don't recall if I specifically said that the copying process must be done > with some skill before I was comfortable with it, but it was certainly implied; Oh, of course it was. I'm only attacking your statement that "subjectivity" can be any requirement. Our new hypnotized mental patient with an incredible memory of what the real Napoleon did subjectively believes he's Napoleon just as much as the real Napoleon once did. Only our new "Napoleon" is simpy mistaken. But it's not possible to say that he has a different "subjectivity" about the question, at least insofar as that makes much sense to me. > Me: >>>you lambasted me for saying the High Priest thought atoms were sacred, but >>>in your above quotation you throw around the word "replaced" as if the >>>meaning were obvious; but what is actually being "replaced"? > > You: >> You are replaced (even by your exact duplicate) if your historical >> collection of atoms are physically seized and terminated, and replaced by >> something or some one. > > Read the above again, it says you are replaced if you are replaced. While I > certainly agree that is true I don't find it terribly useful. Heh, heh. Yes, I didn't see the circularity :-) Okay, it's fun, so let me try again: ahem, You are replaced if your historical collection of atoms at any point in time is physically seized, terminated, and deposited in a trash heap, and someone else, something else, some other collection of atoms is at once brought to the precise physical location you once held. >> Where you and I agree (and peculiarly, so many people do not due, I think >> to certain things they learned before age 1 that they have not been able >> to overcome), that if you (your present collection of atoms) are replaced >> in the sense that I just said by an exact duplicate, then it does not >> matter. > > Huh? Then what are we arguing about? Just (1) your attacking Heartland for things that he didn't (and still does not) believe, which is a waste of bandwith and muddies progress that we can make, and (2) your employing for the purpose a very dubious concept of "subjectivity" for the purpose. That's all. (Now it is *also* true that IIRC you and I have substantial and profound disagreements about whether it's wise to allow oneself to be replaced by a recent copy say, a day different that one. Precisely, if it's now Wednesday and a copy of you was made Tuesday (and has been resting comfortably in a Las Vegas hotel room), and the Universe will not permit there to be two instances of said person on Thursday, then one instance really *should* sacrifice itself so that the instance of himself gets $10M, rather than merely allow the other Las Vegas version to be vaporized. But 'tis true that we were not back to that old disagreement in the present war with Heartland, where you and I are completely on the same side.) > "Replaced" means exchanging something with something different, exchanging > something with an exact copy means absolutely positively NOTHING has > happened. This is not empty rhetoric, it is the key idea behind "exchange > forces", one of the foundations of modern Physics. For more Google > "Identity Of Indiscernibles" or "Leibniz". I totally agree, up to, of course, as you said, the limits imposed by Mr. Hindbutt. But even those fine quantum distinctions matter not a whit to me---hell, I'm satisfied to lose a few hours' memory for $10M, or, what is the same thing to me, that I get replaced by a frozen version of myself made yesterday (so long as the money is indeed placed into our bank account). >> I don't get it, John. That guy has said over and over that the atoms are >> not the problem > > True, Heartland has said over and over that atoms are not the problem, and > he has said over and over that atoms are the problem. Then he took a > different tack and said the problem is discontinuity in the thought process; > but only objective discontinuity is important, the fact that it would be > imposable to subjectively detect this objective discontinuity is irrelevant > to subjectivity.... Well, maybe he has been or maybe he has not been changing his tune. It doesn't matter. We need to target the current state of his beliefs to the degree that we find that *they* are inconsistent, or merely---as I suggest ---fundamentally awkward and difficult to support. > Let me repeat that, according to Heartland subjective experience is > unimportant to subjectivity! And that my friend does not make > one tiny particle of sense. I don't know why you keep going back to this "subjectivity" crap, nor what it means. Thought I do look forward to another possible opportunity for a lambasting. >> any cessation of process is equal to death to him. > > And so going to the dentist is a death sentence to him. Huh? I don't think so! There is a continuous process in the dentist's chair, and unless the dentist uses anesthesia so powerful that it flatlines Slawomir for a while, he's not really afraid of dentists vis-a-vis identity. >> I can't find exactly what set me off > > You said it on 4-28. Apparently what set you off was when I said: > > " According to him the whole ball game is something that is imposable to > detect subjectively but nevertheless (for reasons never explained) I should > be very concerned about it, subjectively. To say this is silly is a vast > understatement." Hmm. Maybe. But that doesn't sound like "begging the question". Maybe I had confused your earlier remarks with someone elses. Again, I am here only objecting to what "subjectivity" has to do with it, unless you can explain and make it useful. And---again---I object to characterizing his beliefs as having anything to do with atoms: In fact---Slawomir correct me if I am wrong---he's perfectly aware that he loses and gains atoms every day by the hundreds of trillions, and at least billions with every breath. But since it's a continual process, it doesn't halt or suspect the total Slawomir process---and that's his current criterion for his own survival. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 00:32:34 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:32:34 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <09b201c78b88$63ee1930$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Natasha writes > 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. Well, thanks for your interest. Your advice is always quite welcome, I am sure. > 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 > > 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. Gene killed the thread. I missed that post somehow, myself, or I would have shut up immediately (not that I'm sure I said anything further). > 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 was similarly threaten by Brett, as were a number of people. Clearly, that is beyond the pale. And if Brett is reading this, he really needs to chill. As they say. > > 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. Uh oh. The threat has just become more ominous. > > 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 person's > > arguments and say so. It is another to stop other people from > > hearing Oh, okay---he's back to objecting to a thread being killed. Perfectly sensible. We all are occasionally miffed by that. > > 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. Whoa. Like in killing *people* or something??? > > You are yourself a transient information thread that the universe > > has yet to rule on." Yikes, back to being very ominous again. > 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... Yes; it takes a judicious hand at the helm. While it is a shame that threads ever need to be, ah, suppressed, the evidence is that unmoderated lists too often degenerate into real junk. The life of a moderator may not be an easy one, and we should always respect ones of good judgment that do help preserve the health of a list. The Extropian list has always been lucky in having volunteers of sound judgment take on this role, even if from time to time, naturally, mistakes are made. > And, finally, I do not like is the content of your (Brett's) 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. That's for damn sure! > But putting that aside, what do other list members think of this thread? It's hard to say. In general, as far as overtly political thread so, I suppose that so long as an effort is made to put something of a transhumanist spin on the discussion that's fine. Also, if it really is something that people are spending a *lot* of time dwelling on (like 9/11 on 9/12), then it's natural for us to discuss it. I do believe, though, that a *simple* debating of political issues needs to be avoided, and at some point a moderator is justified in squelching it. Thanks for jumping in, Natasha. Lee From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue May 1 00:44:17 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:44:17 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Stathis writes : >> >> If I-now think I've survived as a continuation of I-before, >> >> then that's what matters in survival. Heartland replied: >> 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 responds: > The problem I have is with your definition of death. Stathis asks today: > 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. Can you please answer my questions first? After all, I asked you first. Thanks. H. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 1 00:42:43 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:42:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <09a601c78b86$46c91410$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070427155653.0230c178@satx.rr.com> <200704290451.l3T4ppht015948@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070429113755.02274c98@satx.rr.com> <009601c78a81$f49eca90$d9074e0c@MyComputer> <093701c78ae6$33d42200$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008001c78b42$cae8df30$41074e0c@MyComputer> <09a601c78b86$46c91410$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070430194023.0242d968@satx.rr.com> At 05:15 PM 4/30/2007 -0700, LC wrote to JKC: > > Mr. Hinesburg >Mr. Hindbutt Well played, sir! Oh, I say, well played! Vernor fon Krautschnitzel From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 00:45:59 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:45:59 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] About ESP, etc. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070430165437.023ad610@satx.rr.com> References: <20070427102544.GA9439@leitl.org> <20070428090423.GO9439@leitl.org> <084d01c78a46$fe3ccdd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46349D88.3010102@pooq.com> <08a601c78a84$01c3e500$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070429181651.022df8b0@satx.rr.com> <094a01c78ae9$b6e89f60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430005641.023829a8@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0704300828u5c7d492qf53b9c8e5d18eea4@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430120621.02428758@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430143128.02366818@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430165437.023ad610@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:00:53 -0400, Damien Broderick wrote: > This comment might have had the unfortunate effect of deterring the > knowledgeable from further comments that might help disambiguatecheaters > from psychics in such games. Please don't be put off! No problem, I'm still with you... > A card-counter, according to most of the card-counting strategies I > have seen, plays the optimal strategy at all times; sticks the > minimum bet most of the time and increases it minimally when the odds > favor winning. Yes. > Since the optimal strategy is known it can be observed > that the player is following it; he profits only because he places > higher bets during his winning streaks. Not exactly. The counter places higher bets when the odds are in his favor. Such favorable conditions may or may not be "during his winning streaks" and in fact almost half the time they are not. (Counters believe in statistics, not streaks!) > A psychic, on the other hand, may get cues that cause cardplay to > deviate from the optimal strategy: Yes, that would be a clue that our player has some kind of psychic advantage. > Behavioral clues that a player is a "clairvoyant" who can reliably > "see through" one thickness of pasteboard: > > -Always buys the "insurance" side-bet if the dealer actually does > have a hidden blackjack, and never buys it otherwise. [Optimal > strategy never buys insurance -- lacking inside information, it's a > sucker bet that increases your overall loss rate.] The insurance bet is a sucker bet only for non-counters. Optimal *counting" strategy calls for taking the insurance bet when the count is even mildly positive (indicating a probability that the dealer's hole card is a ten or a face-card), which is the case about half the time that the dealer shows an ace. Optimal *basic* (non-counting) strategy does however call for declining the insurance bet every time. > -Never busts when requesting another card. [This may cause him to > decline a card when the optimal strategy calls for one.] Yes, an infallible clairvoyant would never bust, (that is, unless he was going to lose anyway and sees that taking a bust card would make some future hand a winner, but this supposition starts to get complicated...) > -Doubles down whenever his third card brings him to 21, or to a > number that will beat the dealer's initial hand of 17 or better > (standard rules require the dealer to stand on such a hand). [This > will almost certainly produce double-down bets when the optimal > strategy says otherwise.] Yes. > -Keeps initial bet at a constant level. [Inconsistent with card > counting.] No, like a card-counter, an optimizing infallible clairvoyant would increase his bet when he anticipates a winning hand. Note that he'd also bet the table minimum when he anticipates a losing hand, and that losing hands would happen quite often even despite his special powers (excluding psycho-kinesis). > Behavioral clues that a player is a "precognitive" who gets ashort-term > warning only of good or bad outcomes, without details: > -Bets the lower limit most of the time, but unpredictably raises betto > the upper limit, and is always dealt a blackjack when thishappens. > [Inconsistent with card-counting. Over the long run,probably also > inconsistent with dealer's sanity. I am assuming thatthe precog gets > immediate feedback on the outcome of one decision orevent at a time, and > winning on a dealt blackjack is the only*immediate* good outcome > possible when deciding whether to play another hand.] Not sure what you mean here or in what else you wrote. Seems to me our precog as you define him may or may not play like a card-counter, depending on what he is having precognitions *about*. If he is intuitive about the statistics of the deck then he would play like a counter; but if his intuitions were about the next cards in the deck and the dealer's hole card then he would play like a clairvoyant. Of course there is some overlap here. -gts From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 00:50:38 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:50:38 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <09c201c78b8b$342b33b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Heartland writes > 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. > > 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. A major difference is that there *was* no such alien spaceship :-) whereas there really are negotiable $10M checks! > Lee: >> We should focus on what it is about us that we treasure. None of us >> is really interested in how my bit string varies from moment to moment, >> or from year to year. We are interested in survival. > > This *is* about survival. Why would I care at all about any of this if it wasn't > about survival? I agree. You shouldn't. Evidently you wouldn't. I stated it in a way that could be misunderstood. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. > 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? I don't get it, and I don't need to. 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 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? 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? Well, first, that inital statement is not very precise; because I used the word "you" and "I" rather sloppily. But hopefully it painted the right picture: my memories are placed into your body displacing yours, and your memories are placed in my body displacing mine. 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??". 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? 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). Lee From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Tue May 1 00:54:10 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life In-Reply-To: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <565682.9936.qm@web35609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I am fascinated by the possibilities of "Second Life" but have not yet actually ventured there with an avatar. My understanding of the website is sketchy but I would have thought recording and making available the presentations would have been relatively simple. In fact, I had expected easy access video streams showing the speakers communicating through their avatars. I realize written texts are available online but I was hoping for the a bit more of the "Second Life" experience. lol At a later point will I be able to see things as they were originally broadcast? Best wishes, John Grigg Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/seminar_on_h_and_religion_in_sl/ Seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life Sunday, April 29, 2007, uvvy island in SL The event was organized by the Second Life Chapter of the World Transhumanist Association . Speakers: Giulio Prisco, Executive Director, World Transhumanist Association (yours truly). I summarized my article/book precis Engineering Transcendence. Extropia Dasilva, Fascinating and Mysterious Virtual Personality. Extropia is a "transhumanist avatar" who writes some of the best mind expanding stuff about first and second life, the universe and everything. Her talk Climbing Technological Mount Improbable is available online. James Hughes, Executive Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies . James presented his paper "The Compatibility of Religious and Transhumanist Views of Metaphysics, Suffering, Virtue and Transcendence in an Enhanced Future" (link). Lincoln Cannon, President, Mormon Transhumanist Association. Lincoln presented the fascinating blend of Mormonism and Transhumanism developed by the MTA. My presentation started, as usual, with a personal introduction slide where I said that I am with the WTA but am now speaking on behalf of Giulio Prisco, Giulio Perhaps (my avatar in SL), Yours Truly, the Fat Ugly Guy here (my avatar again) and Myself. I presented my own views on transhumanism and religion, which are not and cannot be represented as official WTA views. I think the "cosmic" part of transhumanism *is* an alternative to religion, firmly based on the scientific worldview, but able to provide much of what most people search in a religion. My conclusion: "Our Manifest Destiny: our species will spread to the stars, merge with its technology, and acquire god-like powers. Uploading technology will permit cybernetic immortality with the safeguard of backup copies. With "future magic", we may find a way one day to bring back all persons who have ever lived. This can be an alternative to religion, based on science, rationality and humanism. I am very interested in the current experimental activities to memetically engineer transhumanist alternatives to religion, based on science, but still able to offer hope in "another life" even for those who are already dead". Extropia gave, as usual, a very thoughtful and challenging presentation of current trends towards a Singularity and beyond. Her conclusion: "If the technological Singularity is not the summit of Mount Improbable after all, one might ask what is. Will science reveal the answer? Or maybe philosophy? Perhaps theology? Or should we conjecture that these are all manifestations of a grander overarching conceptual framework that we currently cannot comprehend, but may come to appreciate as we ascend to a state that might appropriately be defined as 'God'? I like to think so!". James had a monster presentation of interfaces, similarities and differences, and possible cross-talks between transhumanism and religions. James is, of course, a smart politician who knows better than trying to be too explicit on whether transhumanism can or cannot be an alternative to religion. His conclusion: "Transhumanism is potentially compatible with many metaphysics, theodicies, soteriologies and eschatologies. Religious will incorporate the H+ project into their faiths to create trans-spiritualities. The future religious landscape will be much more interesting". This concept of infecting religions with transhumanist memes is not so different from my concept of engineering religions based on transhumanism, and basically similar to an equivalent strategy, often discussed on the lists, to develop a transhumanist memetic presence in political movements. Lincoln affirmed the basic compatibility between Mormonism and Transhumanism. He stated that the views of the MTA are received "with interest" by the larger Mormon community. His conclusions: "We believe that scientific knowledge and technological power are among the means ordained of God to enable such exaltation, including realization of diverse prophetic visions of transfiguration, immortality, resurrection, renewal of this world, and the discovery and creation of worlds without end". This is, I believe, a perfect explanation of why, despite what fundamentalists may say, transhumanism is not at all incompatible with religion but, on the contrary, each of the two sets of sensibilities can boost the other in a positive feedback loop. This was a very good event and I was especially pleased to see some of the newcomers join the Second Life Chapter of the WTA. Technical notes: All speakers with the exception of Extropia used audio streaming for presentations and answers to questions from the audience. James Hughes and Lincoln Cannon used the Shoutcast plugin for Winamp to stream to our Shoutcast server, and I used Nicecast on a Mac to do the same. The technical challenge was the coordination of sound streams coming from different remote locations (basically, the previous speaker has to stop broadcasting, the next speaker must start broadcasting, nobody must start broadcasting at any moment different from the scheduled moment, and an occasional restart of the Shoutcast server may be required). Audio worked very well for James and Lincoln (their voices were crystal clear). It worked very well also for me but with some interruptions (I had to restart broadcasting several times). This was due to a combination of other speakers starting their broadcast while mine was still on and the fact that my Internet connection was not so reliable yesterday. About 60 persons attended, with a peak audience of 45. There was not too much lag despite uvvy island being only a Class 4 sim. Extropia's talk was disturbed by a griefer who, of course, was kicked out and banned from the region. He may even have been (you never know) one of the well known outspoken enemies of transhumanism. I can see his point - our ideas *are* a danger for the narrow, fundamentalist mentality they represent. This page on the uvvy wiki has more pictures and will be updated with pictures, links, transcripts, audio and video clips as they become available. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 01:23:44 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:23:44 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> <09b201c78b88$63ee1930$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <09c801c78b8f$67adb510$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Further thoughts on when threads should be "killed". (The scare quotes are to prevent certain people from forming connections that make the termination of a particular discussion reminiscent of the termination of real folks.) An important consideration is list volume. If the list is quiet, it could be a mistake to "kill" even the most off-topic or silly thread. This is because it could contribute to a great silence falling over a list, a silence that could be self-supporting. E.g., it could help generate the unconscious impression that not so many people are reading posts on the list, or that checking the list from time to time to see what is new on it might be a waste of time (if no one is posting or reading it). But when volume is heavy, precisely the opposite: the "killing" of off-topic threads attracts rather than repels more readers of the kind we want reading our posts. Lee From bret at bonfireproductions.com Tue May 1 01:03:13 2007 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:03:13 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: As if the insult that follows this remark is not enough, this single statement alone: Brett Paasch wrote: > I would oppose your reanimation. Is utterly contemptible. I wrote Eugen offlist to say so. Call me whatever you want. But oppose my capability to attempt to return? Especially on a list where it is the intent - the heavily invested intent for some - of some/many members? And for what is this opposition raised? Teleological or eschatological argument? Pattern versus thread? No. Presidential impeachment. One of the largest wastes of pixels out there. I've offered before that I thought this list was under attack in a manner like alt.syntax.tactical used to do back in the days before "threadjack" was a word. Fortunately we have people willing enough to derail the list without a conspiracy. If you want to plot impeachment, there are probably thousands of lists one can join. I'm sure one would even send you a t-shirt. Meanwhile, I want to know what everyone's SL names are, and talk about the talk. ~ Bret (with one 't' and considered saying "the original Bret" since I don't recall one being on here back when I joined the first time, but wouldn't want to insult the Bret Collective either. My rant is over, back to watching Blues Clues.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 01:31:17 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:31:17 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Back to putting it to rest References: <80511.15042.qm@web37202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <09d901c78b90$cec72e60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Well, Anna, you're hardly going to be able to stop people from little one-liners like this. His venom is directed toward someone of his own ilk, not towards religion per se. In other words, some people here really do not respect religions at all, and that is going to come out from time to time. Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anna Taylor" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Back to putting it to rest (was How to be copiedinto the future?). > --- John K Clark wrote: >> But then again who cares about this newfangled >> scientific method, it's not in The Bible. > > See, this is exactly what I was talking about. You > are using Religion as ridicule. Is that all you could > come up with as a rebuttal? ... From msd001 at gmail.com Tue May 1 01:54:02 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:54:02 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] About ESP, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <20070427102544.GA9439@leitl.org> <094a01c78ae9$b6e89f60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430005641.023829a8@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0704300828u5c7d492qf53b9c8e5d18eea4@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430120621.02428758@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430143128.02366818@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430165437.023ad610@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <62c14240704301854p594d0c4fk49adfb5f942ad027@mail.gmail.com> Can (should) precognition be explained as a subconscious assembly of potentially non-obvious clues? I could see a "hunch" coming up from an intuitive impulse to hit when the card-counter says stand. Is that precog, luck, or an otherwise less-than-explicable good move? (assuming this action leads to a win) I wonder if this could be a form of learning by trial and error. Not knowing how to play blackjack and betting with virtual money, I learned the basics of the game just by doing it repeatedly. After a while, there's as much instinct to what is going on as any hard rules. (i was maybe 10 at the time, so i certainly wasn't doing a statistical analysis of probability of winning on a 13 when the dealer is showing a 6) Did you ever watch Jeopardy and know the answer to questions only a moment before they answer the question? (ok, question the answer *g*) I was often suprised that I got Jeopardy questions with as high a rate as I did - mostly without a conscious awareness of how or when i learned the material being presented. Is that precog, or lightening fast random access to a lifetime of stored facts that had otherwise no memory trigger? I'll buy that scenario, it seems more likely than precognition, right? Then what about Card Sharks? That's another game show that I seemed to 'guess' correctly more often than maybe I should have. I'll also go with the idea of card counting for that game show too, but it still seems weird. As if the amount of language required to state the cumulative subconscious knowledge required to track the deck and probabilistically assess the current situation in order to make the correct guess from moment to moment were too difficult to express and therefor Occams razor seems to point to precognition as a simpler explanation just a few thoughts From mbb386 at main.nc.us Tue May 1 01:55:08 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <40770.72.236.103.131.1177984508.squirrel@main.nc.us> I commented offlist that I appreciated the moderator comment. I've never blocked an extropy list member but I came very close that day. Regards, MB From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 01:58:22 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:58:22 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <09e401c78b94$4f939080$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis wrote (and I hope that I'm not doing damage by getting it out of context) > If I-now think I've survived as a continuation of I-before, > then that's what matters in survival. But this "think" can be mistaken, can't it? It seems to me that you are saying a lot of what John Clark was saying (when I was taking him literally). What about my example of a nut who knows a lot about Napoleon and has begun to *think* that he is Napoleon. Is that all that matter's in Napoleon's survival? Lee From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue May 1 01:41:02 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:41:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <880958.25542.qm@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Natasha, I hope you enjoyed your stay in Montreal and that people where hospitable. I am curious to know why Brett didn't politely, on list, ask Eugen why he thought that the thread should be killed? Thanks Anna:) --- Natasha Vita-More 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 > <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 > > > Natasha > Vita-More > PhD Candidate, > Planetary > Collegium > Proactionary Principle Core Group, > Extropy > Institute > Member, Association of > Professional Futurists > Founder, > Transhumanist Arts & > Culture > Advisory Committee, > Zero Gravity Arts > Consortium > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only > what's inside the circle, > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you > study what is inside the > circle and everything outside the circle, then that > is an open system > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Tue May 1 01:50:07 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:50:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [extropy-chat] Back to putting it to rest In-Reply-To: <09d901c78b90$cec72e60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <69816.43671.qm@web37213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thank you Lee. I know that it will come up time and again and again, and I'll get bored, and stop trying to get my point accross. On the other hand, once in while, I like a good debate:) Putting it to rest, Anna:) --- Lee Corbin wrote: > Well, Anna, you're hardly going to be able to stop > people > from little one-liners like this. His venom is > directed toward > someone of his own ilk, not towards religion per se. > > > In other words, some people here really do not > respect > religions at all, and that is going to come out from > time to > time. > > Lee > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anna Taylor" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:01 PM > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Back to putting it to > rest (was How to be copiedinto the future?). > > > > --- John K Clark wrote: > >> But then again who cares about this newfangled > >> scientific method, it's not in The Bible. > > > > See, this is exactly what I was talking about. > You > > are using Religion as ridicule. Is that all you > could > > come up with as a rebuttal? ... > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 1 02:25:46 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:25:46 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 01/05/07, Heartland wrote: Stathis writes : > >> >> If I-now think I've survived as a continuation of I-before, > >> >> then that's what matters in survival. > > Heartland replied: > >> 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. Because that's how people define survival, as in not dying. If someone did claim that sleep was death, the response would be, "No, I went to sleep last night, and I don't feel dead; so whatever evidence you show suggesting that everyone does die when they fall asleep, that just means your definition of death is wrong, or at least different to what everyone in the history of the world who ever thought about death understood by that term." It would be like science discovering that cats and dogs are actually the same species: we would still see them as distinct and would come up with a new definition of species or subspecies to take the place of the old one. Stathis responds: > > The problem I have is with your definition of death. > > Stathis asks today: > > 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. > > Can you please answer my questions first? After all, I asked you first. > Thanks. > (Sorry, I thought I was answering it - see above). -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 1 02:44:52 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:44:52 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <09e401c78b94$4f939080$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <09e401c78b94$4f939080$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 01/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: Stathis wrote (and I hope that I'm not doing damage by getting > it out of context) > > > If I-now think I've survived as a continuation of I-before, > > then that's what matters in survival. > > But this "think" can be mistaken, can't it? It seems to me that you are > saying a lot of what John Clark was saying (when I was taking him > literally). What about my example of a nut who knows a lot about > Napoleon and has begun to *think* that he is Napoleon. Is that > all that matter's in Napoleon's survival? It would have to be more than just a belief, of course. It would have to include all the memories, thought patterns, abilities etc. that we would normally require for a person to qualify as the same person from day to day. It would be impossible in practice for one person to emulate another with the required fidelity, although I don't see why there should be a problem with it in principle. After all, mind uploading involves teaching a computer to believe it is you, and the computer ostensibly has less in common with you than you have in common with a madman. Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jay.dugger at gmail.com Tue May 1 02:58:45 2007 From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (Jay Dugger) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:58:45 -0600 Subject: [extropy-chat] i am a strange loop In-Reply-To: <200704291538.l3TFclbc019536@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200704291538.l3TFclbc019536@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <5366105b0704301958w14890af7vac8370eff3cafaab@mail.gmail.com> 21:57 Monday, 30 April 2007 > > I noticed Hofstadter has a new book called I Am a Strange Loop. Anyone read > it? > No, but it's on my list for my trip to Florida next month. Q: How do you know you're a nerd? A: When you look forward to spending a month of summer in a beachside hotel in Florida so you can read a new book by Hofstadter. -- Jay Dugger http://jaydugger.suprglu.com Sometimes the delete key serves best. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 1 03:08:03 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:08:03 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] About ESP, etc. In-Reply-To: <62c14240704301854p594d0c4fk49adfb5f942ad027@mail.gmail.com > References: <20070427102544.GA9439@leitl.org> <094a01c78ae9$b6e89f60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430005641.023829a8@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0704300828u5c7d492qf53b9c8e5d18eea4@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430120621.02428758@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430143128.02366818@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430165437.023ad610@satx.rr.com> <62c14240704301854p594d0c4fk49adfb5f942ad027@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070430220311.0247f278@satx.rr.com> At 09:54 PM 4/30/2007 -0400, Mike Dougherty wrote: >Can (should) precognition be explained as a subconscious assembly of >potentially non-obvious clues? In ordinary life, what seems to be prophetic probably is just what you identify, if it's not a chance coincidence. In the lab, with suitable blinding, no--by definition. Obviously coincidence can never be ruled out, but when the chance probability of a match or a sequence of matches surpasses a certain predefined improbable value, something genuinely anomalous is indicated. >Did you ever watch Jeopardy and know the answer to questions only a >moment before they answer the question? > I was often suprised that I got Jeopardy questions with as high a >rate as I did - mostly without a conscious awareness of how or when i >learned the material being presented. Is that precog, or lightening >fast random access to a lifetime of stored facts that had otherwise no >memory trigger? Could be either; probably the latter, given the observed infrequency of psi effects. Damien Broderick From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Tue May 1 01:52:56 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:52:56 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <46369D78.2080009@thomasoliver.net> Natasha Vita-More wrote: > [...] because we share this list as a venue to discuss and challenge > ideas [...] Yes. > From: Eugen Leitl > >>> 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. > 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. >Brett responded: > . . . rather emotionally, offering nothing positive towards reinstating the thread. Moderation seems appropriate when we're confronted with such venomous content, but the thread itself needs no censorship. It had already nearly died. Still, the pattern of Brett's recent posts seemed to call for moderation at some point. I typed a response to his attack on Max, but decided not to post it for fear of adding fuel to a disturbance. > [...] Whether or not Brett's thread is on topic for this list is one > issue at stake. [...] 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. Yes, I got the impression Eugen called for killthread as a tactful way of moderating emotionalism. > [...] Instead of approaching the topic from a constructive inclusive > manner, you made assumptions and accusations. This never sits well > with list members. Not when it gets "un fun." > [...] what do other list members think of this thread? We can't resurrect it if it never dies. If we do, lets hope it has a new identity. : ) > Lastly, I do think this is a topic that warrants objective examination > and search for resolution. I invite you to think about this. Sure. -- Thomas From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 04:50:12 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:50:12 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis replied a while ago to Heartland and said: Stathis wrote : >> >> If I-now think I've survived as a continuation of I-before, >> >> then that's what matters in survival. Heartland replied: >> 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 now says > Because that's how people define survival, as in not dying. If someone > did claim that sleep was death, the response would be, "No, I went to > sleep last night, and I don't feel dead; so whatever evidence you show > suggesting that everyone does die when they fall asleep, that just means > your definition of death is wrong, Here is where I agree with those who say that "day-persons" (e.g. see Mike Perry's "Forever For All") are *conceivable* though they aren't (as yet) real. To me it is a question of objective truth whether I am the same person as the Lee Corbin of yesterday. It is possible that I remember being him, and function just dandy in society because I have (just barely) enough of his memories (like stuff at work) to get by. Now this could have happened every day of my life, exactly as in the thought experiments we inflict on Heartland. Namely, Lee is replaced each night by a copy whose memories have been vastly changed from from the Lee's of the day before (though just enough to evade being exposed as an imposter). If I found out that this was going on, then I would be most alarmed, and would insist that this nightly process be terminated (however glad I was that it had happened the previous night). I would realize, with some sadness, that I really had lived only one day. This is what Heartland and Damien and all of them are afraid of when it comes to teleportation, and what Heartland is afraid of when it comes to process interruption. Now for you and I, however, it is just like you *did* just write in an email to me: Stathis to Lee just now: > It would have to be more than just a belief, of course. It would have to > include all the memories, thought patterns, abilities etc. that we would > normally require for a person to qualify as the same person from day > to day. Er, you mean that you and I and John Clark require from day to day. The mensheviks on this list do not believe in our criteria of identity. > It would be impossible in practice for one person to emulate another > with the required fidelity, although I don't see why there should be a > problem with it in principle. Right. In principle I could be imitated by someone who would fool everyone I know, though it would take God-like powers to know what to include in the ersatz Lee and what to leave out. As I reiterate, who is known as Lee would not be the same person from day to day, alas. > After all, mind uploading involves teaching a computer to believe > it is you, and the computer ostensibly has less in common with > you than you have in common with a madman. Well---if that is going to be the case, I do not want to be uploaded, because it would not constitute survival. An upload machine would not need God-like knowledge of what to fiendishly include (just enough to fool people) and what to omit. I would settle for a fairly mechanical process that made an electronic version of me that passed insofar as everyone I know. To summarize, I disagree with your extra or alternative criterion expressed in your remarks to Heartland: > Because that's how people define survival, as in not dying. If someone > did claim that sleep was death, the response would be, "No, I went to > sleep last night, and I don't feel dead; so whatever evidence you show > suggesting that everyone does die when they fall asleep, that just means > your definition of death is wrong, Don't you agree that in truth that would be an inadequate response? Would it not---as you wrote to me later---have to be accompanied by better evidence than that, namely objective knowledge that the memories of the yesterday person were incredibly similar to the today person (as in actual fact in daily life they really are)? Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 1 03:30:09 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:30:09 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life In-Reply-To: <565682.9936.qm@web35609.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070430232017.041b5198@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:54 PM 4/30/2007 -0700, John Grigg wrote: >I am fascinated by the possibilities of "Second Life" but have not yet >actually ventured there with an avatar. snip The thing that is most interesting about Second Life is that as *crude* as it is, it sucked in something close to 1 in a thousand of the US population. (Agreed many may be from outside the US.) 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. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 1 05:47:05 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 00:47:05 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Yesterday's Seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com> 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 thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 1 05:59:43 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 00:59:43 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> At 09:50 PM 4/30/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: >Namely, Lee is replaced each night by a copy whose memories have been >vastly changed from from the Lee's of the day before (though just enough >to evade being exposed as an imposter). ... > >This is what Heartland and Damien and all of them are afraid of when it >comes to teleportation No, like most organisms I'm afraid of being killed. It doesn't make any difference if someone recompiles an exact copy of me in a galaxy far, far away. Certain biases driven by my genes might be persuaded that such simulacra should become twice as precious to me as my genes estimate my kids and sibs should be, but so far they haven't even done such a great job in urging me to reproduce or keep in touch with my sister and brothers most of the time, let alone bequeath them my fortune. Damien Broderick From jonkc at att.net Tue May 1 06:03:36 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 02:03:36 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070427155653.0230c178@satx.rr.com><200704290451.l3T4ppht015948@andromeda.ziaspace.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070429113755.02274c98@satx.rr.com><009601c78a81$f49eca90$d9074e0c@MyComputer><093701c78ae6$33d42200$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><008001c78b42$cae8df30$41074e0c@MyComputer><09a601c78b86$46c91410$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430194023.0242d968@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <002401c78bb6$78209b20$290b4e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" >> > Mr. Hinesburg > >>Mr. Hindbutt > > Well played, sir! Oh, I say, well played! > > Vernor fon Krautschnitzel And so Damien from this brilliant response can I assume the only objection you have with my ideas is my spelling? John K Clark From velvethum at hotmail.com Tue May 1 06:10:22 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 02:10:22 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 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. 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. 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. H. From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 1 06:21:16 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:21:16 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 01/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > After all, mind uploading involves teaching a computer to believe > > it is you, and the computer ostensibly has less in common with > > you than you have in common with a madman. > > Well---if that is going to be the case, I do not want to be uploaded, > because it would not constitute survival. An upload machine would > not need God-like knowledge of what to fiendishly include (just > enough to fool people) and what to omit. I would settle for a fairly > mechanical process that made an electronic version of me that > passed insofar as everyone I know. I don't really understand your objection here. Taking a general purpose computer and programming it to be Lee is equivalent to taking some person off the street, wiping his mind, and programming him to be Lee, isn't it? Whether these procedures are technically possible is a separate question. To summarize, I disagree with your extra or alternative criterion > expressed in your remarks to Heartland: > > > Because that's how people define survival, as in not dying. If someone > > did claim that sleep was death, the response would be, "No, I went to > > sleep last night, and I don't feel dead; so whatever evidence you show > > suggesting that everyone does die when they fall asleep, that just means > > your definition of death is wrong, > > Don't you agree that in truth that would be an inadequate response? > Would it not---as you wrote to me later---have to be accompanied > by better evidence than that, namely objective knowledge that the > memories of the yesterday person were incredibly similar to the > today person (as in actual fact in daily life they really are)? The objective evidence would rapidly impinge on the subjective evidence, if the two did not match. If everyone recognised you, things were in the same place you put them yesterday, letters you wrote years ago are as you remember them, and so on, then you can say you have survived. I think this much would be evident within moments of waking up. The alternative situation is to have memories removed and false memories implanted while you are asleep. If this were to happen to a sufficient extent tonight, then it would be equivalent to death. So you could physically die but survive mentally, or physically survive but die mentally. It doesn't matter what happens to your body as long as your mind continues. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 1 06:32:06 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:32:06 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 01/05/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 09:50 PM 4/30/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > > >Namely, Lee is replaced each night by a copy whose memories have been > >vastly changed from from the Lee's of the day before (though just enough > >to evade being exposed as an imposter). ... > > > >This is what Heartland and Damien and all of them are afraid of when it > >comes to teleportation > > No, like most organisms I'm afraid of being killed. It doesn't make > any difference if someone recompiles an exact copy of me in a galaxy > far, far away. Certain biases driven by my genes might be persuaded > that such simulacra should become twice as precious to me as my genes > estimate my kids and sibs should be, but so far they haven't even > done such a great job in urging me to reproduce or keep in touch with > my sister and brothers most of the time, let alone bequeath them my > fortune. And yet you leave your fortune to your tomorrow-self, rather than blowing it all before you go to sleep tonight. How do you know that tomorrow-self isn't just some guy who happens to have all your memories? If someone claimed that criterion X is a sure sign of death, and it so happens that criterion X occurs every night to every person, wouldn't you answer that - even without knowing the details of criterion X - it must be a load of crap because you know you *don't* die every night? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Tue May 1 06:33:47 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 02:33:47 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? References: <880958.25542.qm@web37210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005401c78bba$b2e46940$290b4e0c@MyComputer> I haven't been following this thread but I don't need to read it to know it's not censorship. The Extropian list is private property, if the owners don't want a particular subject discussed that is entirely their prerogative. If you disagree with it then start your own list. 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. I don't believe that list has managed their private property well. John K Clark From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 06:36:01 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:36:01 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <0a3c01c78bbb$8db4cc90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes > At 09:50 PM 4/30/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > >> Namely, Lee is replaced each night by a copy whose memories have been >> vastly changed from from the Lee's of the day before (though just enough >> to evade being exposed as an imposter). ... >> >> [That means that *tonight* it will---gulp!---happen to moi. And the >> imposter will only think he's me, have just enough memories to fool >> you all, and my *death* goes unnoticed! But I die, just the same.] >> >> This is what Heartland and Damien and all of them are afraid of when it >> comes to teleportation > > No, like most organisms I'm afraid of being killed. Now that I've spruced up my account a bit, just what is the difference between me no longer living (and happening to be replaced by someone that only has sufficient memories to fool himself and other people), and you being teleported. Just how are our fears different? Lee > It doesn't make > any difference if someone recompiles an exact copy of me in a galaxy > far, far away. Certain biases driven by my genes might be persuaded > that such simulacra should become twice as precious to me as my genes > estimate my kids and sibs should be, but so far they haven't even > done such a great job in urging me to reproduce or keep in touch with > my sister and brothers most of the time, let alone bequeath them my fortune. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 1 06:48:29 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 01:48:29 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <002401c78bb6$78209b20$290b4e0c@MyComputer> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070427155653.0230c178@satx.rr.com> <200704290451.l3T4ppht015948@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070429113755.02274c98@satx.rr.com> <009601c78a81$f49eca90$d9074e0c@MyComputer> <093701c78ae6$33d42200$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <008001c78b42$cae8df30$41074e0c@MyComputer> <09a601c78b86$46c91410$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070430194023.0242d968@satx.rr.com> <002401c78bb6$78209b20$290b4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070501014753.022ca5e0@satx.rr.com> >And so Damien from this brilliant response can I assume the only objection >you have with my ideas is my spelling? Laugh and the world laughs with you. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 06:54:29 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:54:29 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0a4401c78bbd$aa0f55c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 01/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > After all, mind uploading involves teaching a computer to believe > > > it is you, and the computer ostensibly has less in common with > > > you than you have in common with a madman. > > > > Well---if that is going to be the case, [then] I do not want to be uploaded, > > because it would not constitute survival. A [genuine] upload machine > > would [should] not need God-like knowledge of what to fiendishly include > > (just enough to fool people) and what to omit. [In practice] I would settle > > for a fairly mechanical process that made an electronic version of me that > > passed insofar as everyone I know. > > I don't really understand your objection here. Taking a general > purpose computer and programming it to be Lee is equivalent > to taking some person off the street, wiping his mind, and > programming him to be Lee, isn't it? Whether these procedures > are technically possible is a separate question. Now that, I agree with, provided that those processes capture all my memories. What I object to is someone just using the criterion "Well, lessee, it claims to be Lee, it passes some cheap tests that aren't very thorough, and we believe that it's telling the truth when it says it remembers being Lee. So okay, it's Lee. If someone now shows us evidence that in *reality* it only has enough of Lee's memories to superficially resemble Lee enough to fool people, and that in *actuality* huge amounts of Lee are missing---well, that don't matter none. It's still Lee because (a) it remembers being Lee (b) it claims to remember---and on some of the things we can check really does remember---all Lee's shit, so the subjectivity requirement is satisfied. Case closed." You see that that "subjectivity requirement" is quite vapid? Even irrelevant? Besides, being a "subjectivity" requirement is on the face of it immeasurable and highly suspicious anyway. I won't settle for anything less---when they haul out the uploading apparatus---than a well-nigh invincible guarantee that *all* my memories (or---okay, 99.99999% of them) will be captured by the process. No "subjectivity" requirement is acceptable to me. > > To summarize, I disagree with your extra or alternative criterion > > expressed in your remarks to Heartland: > > > > > Because that's how people define survival, as in not dying. If someone > > > did claim that sleep was death, the response would be, "No, I went to > > > sleep last night, and I don't feel dead; so whatever evidence you show > > > suggesting that everyone does die when they fall asleep, that just means > > > your definition of death is wrong, > > > > Don't you agree that in truth that would be an inadequate response? > > Would it not---as you wrote to me later---have to be accompanied > > by better evidence than that, namely objective knowledge that the > > memories of the yesterday person were incredibly similar to the > > today person (as in actual fact in daily life they really are)? > > The objective evidence would rapidly impinge on the subjective evidence, > if the two did not match. If everyone recognised you, things were in the > same place you put them yesterday, letters you wrote years ago are as > you remember them, and so on, then you can say you have survived. Well, if *everything* along those lines works as you say, then yes. But this is hardly the "subjectivity" requirement that I thought that you and John Clark were pressing on Heartland. After all, the new being that is supposed to be me may artificially suddenly "remember" old letters I wrote, as sometimes in dreams we seem to remember having seen absurd situations before, or we are not startled by clearly bizarre things. Just because this imposter claims to be me and says he remembers every old artifact of mine that you show him is not sufficient. We need objective evidence that he has all my old memories. > I think this much would be evident within moments of waking up. And I say that the new creature may be deluding himself as well as you. > The alternative situation is to have memories removed and false > memories implanted while you are asleep. If this were to happen > to a sufficient extent tonight, then it would be equivalent to death. Yes, of course. > So you could physically die but survive mentally, or physically > survive but die mentally. It doesn't matter what happens to your > body as long as your mind continues. That much is right. But it has to be the real McCoy. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 1 07:08:21 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: On 5/1/07, Thomas wrote: > 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 andres at neuralgrid.net Tue May 1 05:00:41 2007 From: andres at neuralgrid.net (Andres Colon) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 01:00:41 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: 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. Andr?s, Thoughtware.tv -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 1 07:24:02 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: 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. 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 07:18:45 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: 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 07:47:03 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: References: Message-ID: <4636F077.1020702@mac.com> BillK wrote: > On 5/1/07, Thomas wrote: > > >> 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 07:52:02 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: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com> <059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 01/05/07, Heartland 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: From jonkc at att.net Tue May 1 08:02:42 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><013c01c788f3$06c458b0$f60a4e0c@MyComputer><38A94159-536C-45C8-81E5-DDA4DFE9FC25@randallsquared.com><076f01c78914$571c6b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><07a201c78995$38a5c970$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><1A7A74FD-3240-435A-B117-6F3B0B522232@randallsquared.com><083c01c78a08$a753b1c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><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$290b4e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" Me: >> Why does randomness and stupidity beat >> intelligence? You: > In the general sense, because they had 4 billion years It took 4 billion years because random mutation and natural selection is incredibly STUPID! Intelligence is not stupid, that's why it's called intelligence. There is an entire galaxy of solutions unavailable to evolution, but not to intelligence. Every large change evolution makes consists of lots of small changes, and every single one of those small changes must confer an IMMEDIATE advantage to the organism; evolution just doesn't understand the concept of one step backward two steps forward. Imagine if you had to turn a prop airplane engine into a jet with a million tiny changes and ever change must improve the performance of the engine, and you had to make the changes while the engine was running. It just couldn't be done. That's probably why evolution was never able to come up with some apparently simple things, like a macroscopic body part that could move in 360 degrees. And also consider the fact that the fastest signals in the brain move at about 100 meters a second, most are far slower; the signals in a AI would move at 300,000,000 meters a second and would have a far shorter distance to travel. > I thought the claim was that a perfect copy could be contrived and swapped > in instantaneously. Nano couldn't do that. That is true, I used the word "instantaneously" because I thought it would make a cleaner thought experiment, but if I had said "after 5 minutes" would it really make a cosmic difference? John K Clark From jonkc at att.net Tue May 1 08:41:37 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 04:41:37 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] META My position on the secular sin of censorship --Was Take a stand References: <01a501c785e4$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 09:32:56 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: References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 01/05/07, BillK wrote: This scenario is often offered as the reason for Fermi's paradox. > > > > 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: From pharos at gmail.com Tue May 1 10:47:45 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: References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: 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 10:28:35 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 06:28:35 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress References: 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: > > > 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 11:32:30 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: References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.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 leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From russell.wallace at gmail.com Tue May 1 12:29:12 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: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705010529s6a86c8f6m1b93891d758abc0d@mail.gmail.com> On 5/1/07, Andres Colon 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: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 1 14:25:12 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: 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. > > >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 14:49:04 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: References: <470a3c520704300032k7921415bm841865662a983990@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501004355.022a1a88@satx.rr.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. > > > 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 14:58:02 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: References: <20070427102544.GA9439@leitl.org> <20070428090423.GO9439@leitl.org> <084d01c78a46$fe3ccdd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> 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 15:10:10 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 15:50:47 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: References: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.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 Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 15:48:45 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><20070428090423.GO9439@leitl.org><084d01c78a46$fe3ccdd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <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 15:51:14 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: From sjatkins at mac.com Tue May 1 15:50:22 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 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 16:07:35 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 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 > > ><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 > > > > > > Natasha > > Vita-More > > PhD Candidate, > > Planetary > > Collegium > > Proactionary Principle Core Group, > > Extropy > > Institute > > Member, Association of > > Professional Futurists > > Founder, > > Transhumanist Arts & > > Culture > > Advisory Committee, > > Zero Gravity Arts > > Consortium > > > > If you draw a circle in the sand and study only > > what's inside the circle, > > then that is a closed-system perspective. If you > > study what is inside the > > circle and everything outside the circle, then that > > is an open system > > perspective. - Buckminster Fuller > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Proactionary Principle Core Group, Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture Advisory Committee, Zero Gravity Arts Consortium If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 16:35:36 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 15:49:33 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> <20070428090423.GO9439@leitl.org> <084d01c78a46$fe3ccdd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <4637557A.9090601@mac.com> Message-ID: On 5/1/07, Samantha Atkins 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 17:11:11 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 >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 >'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 here. > >The survey has also featured in the British press >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 here. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 1 18:26:04 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 19:20:58 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> <013c01c788f3$06c458b0$f60a4e0c@MyComputer> <38A94159-536C-45C8-81E5-DDA4DFE9FC25@randallsquared.com> <076f01c78914$571c6b60$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <07a201c78995$38a5c970$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1A7A74FD-3240-435A-B117-6F3B0B522232@randallsquared.com> <083c01c78a08$a753b1c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <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 19:19:28 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:19:28 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress References: Message-ID: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> BillK wrote: >On 5/1/07, Thomas wrote: > > > >>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 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 18:32:04 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: References: Message-ID: 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 19:54:54 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: <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 > > 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 leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue May 1 20:17:23 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: <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 20:34:02 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><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <09c201c78b8b$342b33b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: 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 20:43:59 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: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: 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. > > > 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: 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 22:11:05 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 23:19:37 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: On 02/05/07, Keith Henson 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: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Tue May 1 23:25:58 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: <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" To: "ExI chat list" 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 23:56:45 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: > >> 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 Wed May 2 00:45:04 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 Wed May 2 00:36:11 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 Wed May 2 00:59:26 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> <07a201c78995$38a5c970$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <1A7A74FD-3240-435A-B117-6F3B0B522232@randallsquared.com> <083c01c78a08$a753b1c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <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 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 Wed May 2 00:53:09 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 23:23:53 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 Wed May 2 01:51:16 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 Wed May 2 03:30:39 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><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> 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 Wed May 2 04:31:12 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 Wed May 2 04:31:43 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 Wed May 2 04:59:35 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 Wed May 2 05:03:54 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><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <09c201c78b8b$342b33b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0ac701c78c77$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 Wed May 2 05:08:35 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: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK writes > I just looked at the Cost of War > > 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 Wed May 2 05:31:57 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 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. To some degree, we have perhaps been arguing between distal and proximal causes. But it's not alway "madness" either. It's often a good survival strategy. Especially in some some circumstances as Machiavelli explained. > 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. In the forest fire case, yes, it can come to be an inevitability. That is, if a people becomes deprived enough, then they will either individually or socially get violent. But to the degree---again---that this is also a historical inquiry, then we simply have that this does *not* explain all modern wars. Too many wars occurred in which evidence of over- population, resource depravation, etc., is not present. > 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. You don't think that of all the wars in Europe between 1300 and 1800 I could not find ones in which economic growth on both sides was as high as the population growth? > 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. I would counter that they are *less* likely to go on a rampage. But even the U.S.---as seen by its enemies in the rest of the world---has gone on a rampage even though there has been prosperity beyond economic growth. In fact, a leader of China could very well use a well-known historical gambit: get into a war if you feel that you are losing political control at home. > Of course, China could get into a war if it were attacked. > Before you say that's impossible, consider Pearl Harbor. What? You're kidding! You mean nations actually get into wars when other nations attack them? Well---I guess I'll just have to add that to my list of the causes of war :-) Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 2 05:37:19 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:37:19 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] Back to Causes of War References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070427191216.046d48e8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070501200547.02c281f0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <0ae001c78c7c$1a7a3b40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > [Lee wrote] > >> 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. Not true. It took more than a century for Europe to reach its pre-plague population levels. "War and Peace and War", by Peter Turchin, or, The Penquin "Atlas of World Population History" history says about 150 years: it was not until 1500 that Europe got back to its 1300 level. Lee > Hungary recovered in less than 50 years from 25% of their population being > killed in wars. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muhi That's two generations, anyway, to pick a nit for Hungary. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 2 05:44:02 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:44:02 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?. References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <0ae501c78c7d$81e4bac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> IN the Eternal Exchange between John Clark and Heartland, the words are being misinterpreted by both sides---really a sign of bad writing. Here is the latest example. John writes > 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. One needs to phrase "I-now" and "I-before" much much more carefully to avoid misunderstanding. I can see why John got upset at that phrase. But if you had written instead, "Just because an entity legally known as Slawomir the High Priest at time 1 believes that Slawomir the etc. at time 0 survived, does not make it true". Now *that* statement is utterly clear---and correct! > 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. Actually, all that is necessary is that some AI did some great surgery on the former John Clark, as explained in previous posts. Of course, your point is taken that this is extremely improbable, and that for all normal intents and purposes, there is no reason to believe that anything weird happened. In this, John seems utterly correct. And it is Slawomir who tries to make the case that something as innocent as a temporarily flat EEG makes a 1/0 difference in survival. Lee From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 2 05:59:03 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:59:03 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress In-Reply-To: <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 02/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: 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. Do you think that the American invasion of Iraq has discouraged those who wish to martyr themselves for Islam? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 2 06:25:27 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 23:25:27 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress References: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0aea01c78c83$1d6a5220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > > 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. > > Do you think that the American invasion of Iraq has discouraged > those who wish to martyr themselves for Islam? People have their own agendas, and are influenced by what you do less than is usually thought. For example, consider the Battered Wife Syndrome: her lament is "What am I doing that makes *him* so angry?" Well, you can tell her over and over again that it's *not* her, it's him---but she is so constituted as to be unable to believe that. She must believe that it's her fault. So it is with the West. "What are we doing that makes *them* so angry?" Well---yes, it is true: if the woman were to stop breathing, to take an extreme example, *he* would probably stop beating her. And if the West were to stop exporting filth around the world, stop corrupting the Muslim youth with everything from clothing styles to bad attitudes, tendentious movies, acceptance of homosexuality, defiance of parents, and so on and on, and also were to become pure isolationists, stop being on Israel's side, profusely apologize for placing troops on the Sacred Soil of Saudi Arabia to repel aggression in Kuwait, etc., yes, Al Qaeda might very well turn its attention elsewhere. But then, evil does triumph when good people do nothing. > Do you think that the American invasion of Iraq has discouraged > those who wish to martyr themselves for Islam? It doesn't matter. People have their own agendas. Lee From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed May 2 07:00:14 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 03:00:14 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?. References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer> <0ae501c78c7d$81e4bac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee: > IN the Eternal Exchange between John Clark and Heartland, Eternal exchange? Are you kidding? Burts of clueless heckling interrupting my conversations with other people, maybe, but an "exchange?" Lee: > One needs to phrase "I-now" and "I-before" much much more carefully > to avoid misunderstanding. I can see why John got upset at that phrase. > But if you had written instead, "Just because an entity legally known > as Slawomir the High Priest at time 1 believes that Slawomir the etc. > at time 0 survived, does not make it true". That joke has gone stale a long time ago, don't you think? Actually, a good joke has at least some truth in it. This one had none, as you know. Perhaps you don't. Lee: > Now *that* statement is utterly clear---and correct! The original terms were correct enough and they were, in fact, Stathis' terms. H. From velvethum at hotmail.com Wed May 2 07:55:57 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 03:55:57 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Lee: >> >This is what Heartland and Damien and all of them are afraid of when it >> >comes to teleportation Damien: >> No, like most organisms I'm afraid of being killed. It doesn't make >> any difference if someone recompiles an exact copy of me in a galaxy >> far, far away. Certain biases driven by my genes might be persuaded >> that such simulacra should become twice as precious to me as my genes >> estimate my kids and sibs should be, but so far they haven't even >> done such a great job in urging me to reproduce or keep in touch with >> my sister and brothers most of the time, let alone bequeath them my >> fortune. Stathis to Damien: > And yet you leave your fortune to your tomorrow-self, rather than blowing it > all before you go to sleep tonight. How do you know that tomorrow-self isn't > just some guy who happens to have all your memories? If someone claimed > that criterion X is a sure sign of death, and it so happens that criterion X > occurs every night to every person, wouldn't you answer that - even without > knowing the details of criterion X - it must be a load of crap because you > know you *don't* die every night? It seems that you first assume, "I don't die every night" and then tailor your definition of death and all the other statements about survival to fit that assumption. It should be the other way around. Only after you find out what death is first you can begin answering questions such as, "When do I die?" Stathis to Lee: > The alternative situation > is to have memories removed and false memories implanted while you are > asleep. If this were to happen to a sufficient extent tonight, then it would > be equivalent to death. Wouldn't you agree that this is an arbitrary definition of death? After all, every portion of Lee's body would function properly and without interruptions, including the brain. Would it really make sense to say Lee died during the night even though Lee's body (all of it) has remained in perfect health throughout the night? Would you be successful in convincing any practicing physician to issue a death certificate for the "deceased?" Stathis to Lee: > So you could physically die but survive mentally, Then I'm afraid you believe in soul. Mental supervenes on the physical. If the physical is no more, the mental is no more too. H. From pharos at gmail.com Wed May 2 08:07:44 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:07:44 +0100 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/2/07, Heartland wrote: > > Wouldn't you agree that this is an arbitrary definition of death? After all, every > portion of Lee's body would function properly and without interruptions, including > the brain. Would it really make sense to say Lee died during the night even though > Lee's body (all of it) has remained in perfect health throughout the night? Would > you be successful in convincing any practicing physician to issue a death > certificate for the "deceased?" > This News article is probably relevant: The new science of resuscitation is changing the way doctors think about heart attacks?and death itself. May 7, 2007 issue - Consider someone who has just died of a heart attack. His organs are intact, he hasn't lost blood. All that's happened is his heart has stopped beating?the definition of "clinical death"?and his brain has shut down to conserve oxygen. But what has actually died? As recently as 1993, when Dr. Sherwin Nuland wrote the best seller "How We Die," the conventional answer was that it was his cells that had died. The patient couldn't be revived because the tissues of his brain and heart had suffered irreversible damage from lack of oxygen. This process was understood to begin after just four or five minutes. If the patient doesn't receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation within that time, and if his heart can't be restarted soon thereafter, he is unlikely to recover. That dogma went unquestioned until researchers actually looked at oxygen-starved heart cells under a microscope. What they saw amazed them, according to Dr. Lance Becker, an authority on emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. "After one hour," he says, "we couldn't see evidence the cells had died. We thought we'd done something wrong." In fact, cells cut off from their blood supply died only hours later. But if the cells are still alive, why can't doctors revive someone who has been dead for an hour? Because once the cells have been without oxygen for more than five minutes, they die when their oxygen supply is resumed. It was that "astounding" discovery, Becker says, that led him to his post as the director of Penn's Center for Resuscitation Science, a newly created research institute operating on one of medicine's newest frontiers: treating the dead. With this realization came another: that standard emergency-room procedure has it exactly backward. When someone collapses on the street of cardiac arrest, if he's lucky he will receive immediate CPR, maintaining circulation until he can be revived in the hospital. But the rest will have gone 10 or 15 minutes or more without a heartbeat by the time they reach the emergency department. And then what happens? "We give them oxygen," Becker says. "We jolt the heart with the paddles, we pump in epinephrine to force it to beat, so it's taking up more oxygen." Blood-starved heart muscle is suddenly flooded with oxygen, precisely the situation that leads to cell death. Instead, Becker says, we should aim to reduce oxygen uptake, slow metabolism and adjust the blood chemistry for gradual and safe reperfusion. Researchers are still working out how best to do this. etc............ BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 2 10:33:07 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 20:33:07 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?. In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer> <0ae501c78c7d$81e4bac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 02/05/07, Heartland wrote: Lee: > > One needs to phrase "I-now" and "I-before" much much more carefully > > to avoid misunderstanding. I can see why John got upset at that phrase. > > But if you had written instead, "Just because an entity legally known > > as Slawomir the High Priest at time 1 believes that Slawomir the etc. > > at time 0 survived, does not make it true". > > That joke has gone stale a long time ago, don't you think? Actually, a > good joke > has at least some truth in it. This one had none, as you know. Perhaps you > don't. > > Lee: > > Now *that* statement is utterly clear---and correct! > > The original terms were correct enough and they were, in fact, Stathis' > terms. One of the problems in this debate is that the terminology can seem to imply the conclusion which is at issue in the first place. This is where I find the concept of the observer moment useful. An observer moment, or OM, unambiguously specifies an instance of conscious experience. Even if all hell breaks loose with duplications, we can always point to Stathis no. 347b at 20:01:04 hrs on 2nd May 2007 in Melbourne, Australia, and everyone will know what we mean regardless of their view on personal identity. This terminology does not imply that OM's have any special ontological status of their own, nor that, for example, Stathis no. 347b is or isn't the "same person" as Stathis no. 347b one second later, or Stathis 356a at the same time in the adjacent room. How the OM's are related to form individuals, and what death means in terms of the existence of non-existence of certain OM's, is then the problem of personal identity, restated more cumbersomely but also more precisely. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 2 10:42:06 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:42:06 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?. In-Reply-To: References: <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer> <0ae501c78c7d$81e4bac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070502104206.GD17691@leitl.org> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 08:33:07PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > One of the problems in this debate is that the terminology can seem to > imply the conclusion which is at issue in the first place. This is > where I find the concept of the observer moment useful. An observer > moment, or OM, unambiguously specifies an instance of conscious > experience. Even if all hell breaks loose with duplications, we can It's hardly a moment, though. "Conscious experience", whatever that means. implies a trajectory segment long enough for higher-order processes to happen, which puts it into some 100 ms country. > always point to Stathis no. 347b at 20:01:04 hrs on 2nd May 2007 in > Melbourne, Australia, and everyone will know what we mean regardless > of their view on personal identity. This terminology does not imply We don't know, because there's no way for us to observe that. It would take a heavily instrumented individual to make even crude measurements upon that trajectory slice. > that OM's have any special ontological status of their own, nor that, > for example, Stathis no. 347b is or isn't the "same person" as Stathis If personhood refers to isomorphisms in the person pattern, of course such trajectory segments can belong to the same person. If you define personhood by static frames, then every single trajectrory frame is a brand new person (an even more extreme view than Slawomir's). > no. 347b one second later, or Stathis 356a at the same time in the > adjacent room. How the OM's are related to form individuals, and what > death means in terms of the existence of non-existence of certain > OM's, is then the problem of personal identity, restated more > cumbersomely but also more precisely. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 2 11:33:51 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 21:33:51 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 02/05/07, Heartland wrote: Stathis to Damien: > > And yet you leave your fortune to your tomorrow-self, rather than > blowing it > > all before you go to sleep tonight. How do you know that tomorrow-self > isn't > > just some guy who happens to have all your memories? If someone claimed > > that criterion X is a sure sign of death, and it so happens that > criterion X > > occurs every night to every person, wouldn't you answer that - even > without > > knowing the details of criterion X - it must be a load of crap because > you > > know you *don't* die every night? > > It seems that you first assume, "I don't die every night" and then tailor > your > definition of death and all the other statements about survival to fit > that > assumption. It should be the other way around. Only after you find out > what death > is first you can begin answering questions such as, "When do I die?" That's the very question I'm asking: how would you define death? Given that we can agree on whether or not criterion X has occurred, how do we then move on to decide whether or not X is a good criterion for death? Stathis to Lee: > > The alternative situation > > is to have memories removed and false memories implanted while you are > > asleep. If this were to happen to a sufficient extent tonight, then it > would > > be equivalent to death. > > Wouldn't you agree that this is an arbitrary definition of death? The arbitrariness of the definition of death - yours and mine - is what is at issue. After all, every > portion of Lee's body would function properly and without interruptions, > including > the brain. Would it really make sense to say Lee died during the night > even though > Lee's body (all of it) has remained in perfect health throughout the > night? Would > you be successful in convincing any practicing physician to issue a death > certificate for the "deceased?" Losing all your memories and personality would be like the end stage of dementia. If you knew you were going to wake up tomorrow in this state it might be a little bit better than not waking up at all, but not much better. The status of these patients in hospital is similar to the status of patients in a persistent vegetative state, except that there is sometimes a hope that the latter might recover. Stathis to Lee: > > So you could physically die but survive mentally, > > Then I'm afraid you believe in soul. Mental supervenes on the physical. If > the > physical is no more, the mental is no more too. I believe that the mind can survive in different hardware. You have agreed to as much when you allowed that swapping out the atoms in your brain for "different" atoms does not necessarily kill you. However, you claim that even brief interruption of the activity in the brain *does* kill you. If the mental supervenes on the physical, and the same atoms are going about their business in the same way a moment later, then the same mental process should be being implemented despite the interruption. That is, if the post-interruption physical state is exactly the same as if it would have been had there been no interruption, and yet the interruption gives rise to a different person, then the difference must be due to some non-physical factor. Worse than that, the difference must be due to some non-mental factor as well, since if the physical state is the same the mental state must also be the same. So the interruption causes a non-physical, non-mental change which results in one person dying and another being born in their place. Even if this were coherent (and I don't believe it is), it would imply the existence of a soul. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sondre-list at bjellas.com Wed May 2 11:45:30 2007 From: sondre-list at bjellas.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Sondre_Bjell=E5s?=) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:45:30 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Remove the extropy-chat from subject line? Message-ID: <003101c78caf$62b2d100$28187300$@com> Is it possible for the list administrators to remove the [extropy-chat] text that is appended to the subjects of all the threads on this list? The text introduces clutter in the headlines and it makes it harder to recognize the individual threads (especially on my tablet pc machine which only does 1024x768). I would expect people use the To-Address to filter e-mails from the extropy list, so there is really no need for all the extra bytes. Regards, Sondre From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 2 12:07:48 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:07:48 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?. In-Reply-To: <20070502104206.GD17691@leitl.org> References: <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer> <0ae501c78c7d$81e4bac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070502104206.GD17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 02/05/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: If personhood refers to isomorphisms in the person pattern, of course > such trajectory segments can belong to the same person. If you define > personhood by static frames, then every single trajectrory frame > is a brand new person (an even more extreme view than Slawomir's). The fact that personhood seems straightforward is just a contingent fact of the world we evolved in: we are born, grow old and die, and at each point in time there is only one of us. The situation would be very different if copying, merging and splitting were commonplace. We would be forced to define a person by name(s), attributes, timestamp and perhaps a tree diagram just so that we know to whom we are referring. What this would mean subjectively for survival, anticipation, responsibility and so on would add another layer of complexity which our (unmodified) sense of self would struggle to cope with. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed May 2 12:28:45 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:28:45 +1000 Subject: [extropy-chat] War and technological progress In-Reply-To: <0aea01c78c83$1d6a5220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0aea01c78c83$1d6a5220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 02/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > Do you think that the American invasion of Iraq has discouraged > > those who wish to martyr themselves for Islam? > > People have their own agendas, and are influenced by what you > do less than is usually thought. For example, consider the Battered > Wife Syndrome: her lament is "What am I doing that makes *him* > so angry?" > > Well, you can tell her over and over again that it's *not* her, it's > him---but she is so constituted as to be unable to believe that. > She must believe that it's her fault. > > So it is with the West. "What are we doing that makes *them* so > angry?" Well---yes, it is true: if the woman were to stop breathing, > to take an extreme example, *he* would probably stop beating her. > And if the West were to stop exporting filth around the world, stop > corrupting the Muslim youth with everything from clothing styles to > bad attitudes, tendentious movies, acceptance of homosexuality, > defiance of parents, and so on and on, and also were to > become pure isolationists, stop being on Israel's side, profusely > apologize for placing troops on the Sacred Soil of Saudi Arabia > to repel aggression in Kuwait, etc., yes, Al Qaeda might very well > turn its attention elsewhere. But then, evil does triumph when good > people do nothing. Evil also triumphs when evil people think they are doing good but are actually doing evil, or good people think they are doing good but are actually doing evil. If we only had the people who know they are evil to contend with, the world would be a much more peaceful place. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 2 12:43:42 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:43:42 +0200 Subject: [extropy-chat] Remove the extropy-chat from subject line? In-Reply-To: <003101c78caf$62b2d100$28187300$@com> References: <003101c78caf$62b2d100$28187300$@com> Message-ID: <20070502124342.GH17691@leitl.org> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 01:45:30PM +0200, Sondre Bjell?s wrote: > Is it possible for the list administrators to remove the [extropy-chat] text > that is appended to the subjects of all the threads on this list? The text It's possible, but I wouldn't remove it altogether, and not overnight. Some filters people to sort list messages into folders use that as a tag. I could imagine shortening that to [extro], [xtr] or even [exi] (assuming, Max/Natasha would agree to the latter), which would reduce clutter. Yeas/nays please to me privately; I'll tally. > introduces clutter in the headlines and it makes it harder to recognize the > individual threads (especially on my tablet pc machine which only does > 1024x768). > > I would expect people use the To-Address to filter e-mails from the extropy > list, so there is really no need for all the extra bytes. H -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 2 16:04:35 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:04:35 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?. References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer> <0ae501c78c7d$81e4bac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0af701c78cd3$b980c2c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> John Clark had written > Heartland... wrote: > > > Just because I-now thinks I-before survived does not cause "I-before > > survived" statement to be true. and then John (understandably) criticized the statement (from the way that he would naturally interpret those statements. I offered a criticism of both the way that the above was written, and I made the serious error of using an unoriginal joke: Slawomir responds: > Lee: >> One needs to phrase "I-now" and "I-before" much much more carefully >> to avoid misunderstanding. I can see why John got upset at that phrase. >> But if you had written instead, "Just because an entity legally known >> as Slawomir the High Priest at time 1 believes that Slawomir the etc. >> at time 0 survived, does not make it true". > > That joke has gone stale a long time ago, don't you think? Actually, a good joke > has at least some truth in it. This one had none, as you know. Perhaps you don't. My sincere apologies---and my even deeper apologies to the list for a bad attempt at levity that derailed serious thought on the part of my discussion partner. Please allow me to rephase: One needs to phrase "I-now" and "I-before" much much more carefully to avoid misunderstanding. I can see why John got upset at that phrase. But if you had written instead, "Just because an entity legally known and univerally recognized as Mr. X at time 1 believes that entity universally recognized at time 0 survived, does not make it true". Do you or do you not concede that this would have been clearer, and would have very possibly prevented John Clark from misunderstanding you? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 2 16:29:23 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:29:23 -0700 Subject: [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes On 02/05/07, Heartland wrote: > > Stathis to Damien: > > > And yet you leave your fortune to your tomorrow-self, rather than blowing it > > > all before you go to sleep tonight. How do you know that tomorrow-self isn't > > > just some guy who happens to have all your memories? If someone claimed > > > that criterion X is a sure sign of death, and it so happens that criterion X > > > occurs every night to every person, wouldn't you answer that - even without > > > knowing the details of criterion X - it must be a load of crap because you > > > know you *don't* die every night? (Actually, I agree with Stathis, but see below for why.) > > It seems that you first assume, "I don't die every night" and then tailor your > > definition of death and all the other statements about survival to fit that > > assumption. It should be the other way around. Only after you find out what death > > is first you can begin answering questions such as, "When do I die?" > > That's the very question I'm asking: how would you define death? > Given that we can agree on whether or not criterion X has occurred, > how do we then move on to decide whether or not X is a good > criterion for death? To me, this is a lot of math-envy. Following Euclid, we must define all our terms and prove all our propositions. Rubbish. So-called "definitions" in philosophy (which are not neologisms) need to be extensionsal, not intensional. (Go look those words up for their philosophical usage.) In other words, we *must* start with what death ordinarily means to everyone in the world, and work backwards for any attempts at refinement. Consider a historical analogy: What is temperature? Well, originally people knew that there is hot and cold, warm and cool, etc., and knew that it was a linear matter. They later, with scientific instruments, attempted to elucidate more of the meaning of "hot", "cold", etc. It would have been folly to have reached into their nether regions and *defined* temperature as this or that. Can you hear sensible people at the time refusing to go ahead, challenging each other with "What do you *mean* by temperature? How do you *define* it?" Now we *all* know what we mean by death in daily life! It's absurd! Suppose that there is a really evil organization that you know of that does kill people. (Pardon me for being circular, but this really is elementary!) If you get a call tonight just before retiring, and they say "By the way, we are killing *you* tonight. It will happen while you are fast asleep?'' Would any of these crazy philosophers reply "Oh, that's all right. I die every day anyway". OF COURSE NOT. Notions such as "maybe we die every instant" or "maybe we die whenever our EEGs go flat", are misconceived, and very harmful for understanding. Let's get serious! You can't get out of paradoxes by making up definitions! If doctors today are---surprisingly---able to save the lives of people that we formerly thought were dead, then we have to realize that they weren't really dead! It should *not* be a matter of struggling for some asinine definition! Stathis goes on > The arbitrariness of the definition of death - yours and mine - is what is at issue. That's just inviting the wrong approach. We all know what death is! We should *not* be trying to *define* it! We need simply to try to understand when it has occurred and when it has not---which, given memory erasure, duplicates, cryonics, partial memory loss, etc., is far from trivial. But it is putting the cart before the horse to *define* it. We need instead to understand, like I say, whether it has occurred, or to what extent it has occurred. And if that proves fruitless, then we simply eventually have to abandon the term altogether, and use paraphrases. Lee From natasha at natasha.cc Wed May 2 16:16:01 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 11:16:01 -0500 Subject: [extropy-chat] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <4637EE94.3020902@comcast.net> References: <380-2200753203611342@M2W015.mail2web.com> <4637EE94.3020902@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070502111501.0408f150@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 08:51 PM 5/1/2007, Brent Allsop wrote: >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. Okay, let me give this some thought today and respond a little later. Thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Wed May 2 17:17:12 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:17:12 -0400 Subject: [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future?, References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> Stathis: >> If I-now think I've survived as a continuation of I-before, then that's >> what matters in survival. Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > That doesn't matter at all. No, what matters to you is not continuity of process but continuity of atoms; and what matters to you is objective temporal continuity, subjective continuity doesn't matter at all to subjective experience (!), at least according to you. > Why should it matter? Because subjectivity is the most important thing in the universe. > Of course it's subjective so it's not valid evidence at all. That pretty much sums up the absurdity of your position, the idea that I need objective proof in order for me to believe I am having a subject experience. The feeling of being alive is a subjective experience and I don't need your precious space time trajectories of my individual atoms to prove to me that I feel alive any more than I need proof that the sensation I feel when I put my hand in a fire I find unpleasant. Direct experience outranks even the Scientific Method. John K Clark From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Wed May 2 18:14:44 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070501105209.0495af48@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <227320.10260.qm@web37412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Following Brett's post to the list, he wrote me off-list, and we've had a few conversations since. Yes, in my opinion, Brett got quite carried away with his emotions because he felt passionately about the subject matter. But, let's not make more of this than it warrants. Brett is not the devil. He had a moment of poor judgment (IMO) fueled by his emotions. It's happened to me too, although perhaps not quite to that degree. We all have flaws. I suspect it was an empty threat, intended only to add emphasis to his disapproval. Regarding the killthread itself: If it had been me, I probably wouldn't have killthreaded it, at least not at that point. But that is both irrelevant *and* beside the point, since I am neither Eugen or a list moderator. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 2 19:01:41 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:01:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200705021912.l42JC7jN029130@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bret Kulakovich Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? As if the insult that follows this remark is not enough, this single statement alone: Brett Paasch wrote: I would oppose your reanimation. Is utterly contemptible. I wrote Eugen offlist to say so...~ Bret Hi Bret with one t, I received several notes offlist to this effect too. Saying one would oppose your reanimation is the technogeeks way of saying go to hell. spike From amara at amara.com Wed May 2 20:28:57 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:28:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) Message-ID: Steven Colbert on a(nother) biography about Albert Einstein.. "Relativity is just science's way of flip-flopping. Space or time, mass or energy? Which is it, pick a side [...] And I'm sorry, E equals m c squared? C does not stand for the speed of light, c is for cookie." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7BwDw2Fmb8 Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From amara at amara.com Wed May 2 20:14:05 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:14:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty Message-ID: Twenty years ago during my more active philosophy days, I found in my philosophy circles what was then an unusual little comic book called: "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: Amidst Vultures, Beggars, Con Men and Kings" by Ken Schoolland. I bought it, read it, and told myself that I would use it in the future to help teach my kids some of my own philosophy, and so I settled it in good company next to my other comic books on my bookshelf and forgot about it. After following a very random thought today, I checked in on the ISIL website news, and encountered this simple, charming animation "Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty", written by, yes, the same Ken Schoolland. http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html Ten minutes Flash Animation. Many basic principles, such as self-ownershop, as seen in this animation, are at the root of transhumanist thought. I appreciated how they carefully constructed the philosophical principles, building block by building block (as they should ... :-) ). Enjoy, Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From benboc at lineone.net Wed May 2 21:44:10 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 22:44:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Putting God to Rest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4639062A.60702@lineone.net> Putting God to Rest Anna Taylor wrote: > I don't know how to compare >an equation to a belief? It's comparing "I believe >that God doesn't exist because there is no known >proof" compared to "I believe in something that I >don't need proof for." Not quite. The comparison is between "I don't believe that god exists because there is no known proof" and "I believe in something that there is no proof for". I hope you can see that there is a difference between believing that something does not exist and not believing that something does exist. It's quite a big difference, and i think that not appreciating this difference is what leads some people to claim that atheism is a faith-based position, when in fact it isn't. Atheism is 'not believing in god/s', rather than 'believing in not god/s'. Many (if not all) religious people hold irrational beliefs about self-contradictory things. Things which cannot logically be true. Hence the comparison to 2+2=5. To be religious you must think that there is such a thing as 'the supernatural', which, to many of us (but not all) is an oxymoron. 'Spiritual' experiences are a different thing. They are subjective states of mind. The fact that many people mistakenly link them to the 'supernatural' is what leads to confusion about Atheists/Brights/Agnostics/etc. having spiritual experiences. Another thing that can muddy the waters is the fact that there are many things we don't know. I think it's important to bear in mind that just because something can't be currently explained, that doesn't mean it belongs to the realm of the supernatural. If you are a rationalist, you see a mystery as something with a logical explanation that we don't yet understand, rather than something mystical and unexplainable. ben zaiboc From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 2 22:13:05 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:13:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> John writes > Stathis: >>> If I-now think I've survived as a continuation of I-before, then that's >>> what matters in survival. > > Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > > > That doesn't matter at all. > > No, what matters to you is not continuity of process but continuity of > atoms; I still don't understand why you persist in making this claim. Would not Heartland instantly agree that each second he loses and gains billions of atoms? Why, for all we know, he'd be perfectly happy to have a heart bypass operation, and lose quadrillions upon quadrillions of his atoms. Moreover, it would not surprise me in the least if he'd quickly sign up for hippocampus replacement, if it guaranteed a wonderful memory enhancement. (Now of course, his guarantees would be more stringent than yours and mine; he might insist upon being conscious throughout the operation, for instance.) BUT ISN'T IT PATENTLY WRONG TO KEEP ON SAYING THAT FOR HIM IT'S ALL ABOUT ATOMS?? > and what matters to you is objective temporal continuity, subjective > continuity doesn't matter at all to subjective experience (!), at least > according to you. > >> Why should it matter? > > Because subjectivity is the most important thing in the universe. > > > Of course it's subjective so it's not valid evidence at all. > > That pretty much sums up the absurdity of your position, the idea that I > need objective proof in order for me to believe I am having a subject > experience. Here I have to agree with Heartland a little more than I agree with you: Yes, you have to believe in your subjective experience as real, and indeed, the most real thing that there is. But you may be simply mistaken about the way that things *seem* to you subjectively. It may be that you are *not* the same John Clark as the world knew yesterday. You're clever enough that I don't need to spell that out in a thought experiment. So subjectivity---just as he says---is a quite *useless* social concept, quite useless to throw around in intelligent discussion with other people who have no access to your subjectivity. Hell, for all I know, John Clark may be a Giant Lookup Table and not be conscious at all! I am the only thing in the universe that I know for sure is conscious, although it would be stupid to bet against other people being so. > The feeling of being alive is a subjective experience and I don't > need your precious space time trajectories of my individual atoms to prove > to me that I feel alive any more than I need proof that the sensation I feel > when I put my hand in a fire I find unpleasant. Direct experience outranks > even the Scientific Method. Who, besides you, gives a ---- about your subjective experience? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 2 22:36:26 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 15:36:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty References: Message-ID: <0b4701c78d0a$bccba300$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Amara writes > After following a very random thought today, I checked in on the ISIL > website news, and encountered this simple, charming animation "Introduction > to the Philosophy of Liberty", written by, yes, the same Ken Schoolland. > > http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html > Ten minutes Flash Animation. > > Many basic principles, such as self-ownershop, as seen in this animation, > are at the root of transhumanist thought. I appreciated how they > carefully constructed the philosophical principles, building block by > building block (as they should ... :-) ). Well, I started to watch that with an anticipation of disappointment, because I have become increasingly disillusioned by the hyper-individualist ethos of not only many of those around me, but to which in some measure I myself had at various times succumbed. But I was greatly reassured. Just as you said, it carefully laid the foundations of human liberty, and emphasized that our lives are our *own*, and no one else's. It went on to explain how our time and the products of time (our privately created property) are also our own, and cannot be taken from us by force without also taking our liberty. Unfortunately, about two-thirds of the way through, I began to notice that something very important was missing. Nothing whatsoever was being said about the Rule of Law. Yes, private property was emphasized, and rightly so. But the other equally important foundation of progress and civilization was not mentioned EVEN ONCE in the ten minute show. Nothing at all was said or implied about just how obedience to democratically enacted laws is to be achieved! Nothing was said about the force that duly elected officials can and should be required to bear upon murderers, thieves, and other law-breakers. This whole problem was passed over in the most deafening silence. I'm forced to conclude that once again we see the sad spectacle of an anarchist philosophy being passed off as an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy, or a real-world possibility. Only in dream land. The video suggested the following solution to the problem of aggression from others: everyone should just never initiate the use of force. Isn't that simple? Isn't that nice? But saying that to a gang of hoodlums who is about to mug Ken Schoolland will do him no good, and he knows it! He'll holler for the cops to initiate force against those who are about to rob or kill him, even though these criminals made no action at all threatening to the cops. Would---in that terrible situation---he recommend that the police *not* initiate the use of force? There are many "free-riders" who, having grown up under systems of relative liberty, simply have lost sight of how the liberty evolved in the first place. An extremely important component of our freedom is the Rule of Law. Lee From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 2 22:45:35 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 17:45:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502174011.02364218@satx.rr.com> At 03:13 PM 5/2/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: >Who, besides you, gives a ---- about your subjective experience? Well, I for one give a shit about John Clark's subjective experience. I'd be sad if it stopped or was impaired. This is partly due to empathy, partly to curiosity about how a rather different subjectivity seems to experience the world. (By contrrast, while my curiosity is aroused by reports of the disordered subjectivity of the mass murderer Cho, I don't really give a flying fuck about its self-destruction.) Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 2 23:00:48 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 18:00:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> At 10:28 PM 5/2/2007 +0200, Amara quoth Colbert: >C does not stand for the speed of light, c is for cookie." I stared at this in dumb bewilderment for a while. This is a joke? This is supposed to be hilariously *funny*? But obviously it was, so it occurred to me that it must be some tag familiar to generations of USians. Isn't there a show that kids watch called "Sesame Street"? And lo! google tells me this refers to the refrain of something called the Cookie Monster. Talk about generation gap... And it can only get more severe. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Wed May 2 23:04:44 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 16:04:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070502174011.02364218@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <0b4b01c78d0e$4ae700a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes > At 03:13 PM 5/2/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > >>Who, besides you, gives a ---- about your subjective experience? > > Well, I for one give a shit about John Clark's subjective experience. > I'd be sad if it stopped or was impaired. This is partly due to > empathy, partly to curiosity... Let me hastily amend what I said, and thank you for---what to me amounts to me as---the correction. I meant *only* as a part of an intellectual argument. Assertions about one's subjective experience (e.g, in this context whether it is the "same" as it was before) are totally worthless. But my mistake to have written such, as it stands literally. Lee > about how a rather different > subjectivity seems to experience the world. (By contrrast, while my > curiosity is aroused by reports of the disordered subjectivity of the > mass murderer Cho, I don't really give a flying fuck about its > self-destruction.) > > Damien Broderick From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Wed May 2 23:36:07 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 19:36:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Perhaps you'd have preferred a "Wiggles" reference? At least that deals with the geographical issue. Josh On May 2, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 10:28 PM 5/2/2007 +0200, Amara quoth Colbert: > >> C does not stand for the speed of light, c is for cookie." > > I stared at this in dumb bewilderment for a while. This is a joke? > This is supposed to be hilariously *funny*? But obviously it was, so > it occurred to me that it must be some tag familiar to generations of > USians. Isn't there a show that kids watch called "Sesame Street"? > And lo! google tells me this refers to the refrain of something > called the Cookie Monster. Talk about generation gap... And it can > only get more severe. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 2 23:54:37 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 18:54:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502185415.023364d0@satx.rr.com> >Perhaps you'd have preferred a "Wiggles" reference? a *what*? From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu May 3 00:02:20 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:32:20 +0930 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0705021702s9b2fe7dka37f064723a03a99@mail.gmail.com> It's a generation gap, not a culture gap. I watched sesame street, pronounced "zed" as "zee" for years... Emlyn On 03/05/07, Josh Cowan wrote: > Perhaps you'd have preferred a "Wiggles" reference? At least that deals > with the geographical issue. > > Josh > On May 2, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > At 10:28 PM 5/2/2007 +0200, Amara quoth Colbert: > > > >> C does not stand for the speed of light, c is for cookie." > > > > I stared at this in dumb bewilderment for a while. This is a joke? > > This is supposed to be hilariously *funny*? But obviously it was, so > > it occurred to me that it must be some tag familiar to generations of > > USians. Isn't there a show that kids watch called "Sesame Street"? > > And lo! google tells me this refers to the refrain of something > > called the Cookie Monster. Talk about generation gap... And it can > > only get more severe. > > > > Damien Broderick > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Thu May 3 00:03:04 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 20:03:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502185415.023364d0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070502185415.023364d0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <20153a4a03c3d4c11ee12977cbeef995@sympatico.ca> "The Wiggles" Australia's highest grossing entertainers for the year 2005. They share the same demographic as Sesame Street... Oh, never mind. ; ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wiggles On May 2, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > >> Perhaps you'd have preferred a "Wiggles" reference? > > a *what*? > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 3 00:10:13 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 19:10:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0705021702s9b2fe7dka37f064723a03a99@mail.gmail.com > References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0705021702s9b2fe7dka37f064723a03a99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502190649.022c64b0@satx.rr.com> At 09:32 AM 5/3/2007 +0930, Emlyn wrote: >It's a generation gap, not a culture gap. I watched sesame street, >pronounced "zed" as "zee" for years... Yep. When I was a lot closer to 20 or 30 than I am now, I wandered into an Aussie rumpus room where the TV set was minding a bunch o' smalls. "This is a care-f," said the woman's voice, possibly from Sesame Street, showing a carf ambling beside a cow. "Say `care-f'!" All the little Aussies dutifully cried: "`Caaaaaare-f'!" And yet--oddly enuff, Aussies maintain an idiosyncratic accent even so, unless they've been to very posh schools. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 3 00:14:15 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 19:14:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) In-Reply-To: <20153a4a03c3d4c11ee12977cbeef995@sympatico.ca> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070502185415.023364d0@satx.rr.com> <20153a4a03c3d4c11ee12977cbeef995@sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502191223.022d6d38@satx.rr.com> At 08:03 PM 5/2/2007 -0400, Josh wrote: >"The Wiggles" Australia's highest grossing entertainers for the year >2005. They share the same demographic as Sesame Street... Oh, never >mind. ; ) As an Aussie pal commented: "It's an issue issue. Parents watch telly with their smallsters. I got the reference immediately." I don't even have grandkids to watch with (thank dog). Damien Broderick From emlynoregan at gmail.com Thu May 3 00:21:32 2007 From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:51:32 +0930 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502190649.022c64b0@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0705021702s9b2fe7dka37f064723a03a99@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070502190649.022c64b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <710b78fc0705021721w47a6f315vd4fced258037ca18@mail.gmail.com> On 03/05/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 09:32 AM 5/3/2007 +0930, Emlyn wrote: > > >It's a generation gap, not a culture gap. I watched sesame street, > >pronounced "zed" as "zee" for years... > > Yep. When I was a lot closer to 20 or 30 than I am now, I wandered > into an Aussie rumpus room where the TV set was minding a bunch o' smalls. > > "This is a care-f," said the woman's voice, possibly from Sesame > Street, showing a carf ambling beside a cow. "Say `care-f'!" > > All the little Aussies dutifully cried: "`Caaaaaare-f'!" > > And yet--oddly enuff, Aussies maintain an idiosyncratic accent even > so, unless they've been to very posh schools. > > Damien Broderick Too true. It's normal to resentfully protect Australian spelling anomalies (which are really British spelling in almost all cases I think), such as colour and gaol. Australian English is something I used to care about a lot, but I find I'm starting to succumb to the charms of the dark side. It's the internet doing it to me, damnit. Some introspection tells me I identify with the net far more than with Australia now. And online, there are two kinds of english: International English (needs another name... English' ?), a kind of creole spoken by people from non-english speaking backgrounds (eg: all of codeproject.com), and American English for the sticklers (like myself). American English has become the high ground! Yee gods! Emlyn From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Thu May 3 00:56:49 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 20:56:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0705021721w47a6f315vd4fced258037ca18@mail.gmail.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0705021702s9b2fe7dka37f064723a03a99@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070502190649.022c64b0@satx.rr.com> <710b78fc0705021721w47a6f315vd4fced258037ca18@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2f21eaaf58a9472df4b5b512fa7c4d52@sympatico.ca> On May 2, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Emlyn wrote: Snip: > > Australian English is something I used to care about a lot, but I find > I'm starting to succumb to the charms of the dark side. It's the > internet doing it to me, damnit. Some introspection tells me I > identify with the net far more than with Australia now. And online, > there are two kinds of english: International English (needs another > name... English' ?), a kind of creole spoken by people from > non-english speaking backgrounds (eg: all of codeproject.com), and > American English for the sticklers (like myself). American English has > become the high ground! Yee gods! > I've been wondering, when a sentient AI is created if there will be issues for speakers of certain languages in dealing with a gender neutral entity? For example, I've just started learning French and it seems all nouns are assigned a gender. What about a being that is gender neutral? O.K., I know this issues isn't up there with whether one dies every observer moment but still... Josh Cowan From mfj.eav at gmail.com Thu May 3 01:56:55 2007 From: mfj.eav at gmail.com (Morris Johnson) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 18:56:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] benefits of USA War??? Message-ID: <61c8738e0705021856l398ba17drd3c1dfdeb60788db@mail.gmail.com> For discussion purposes I'm going to troll and speculate on the war dividend. Higher energy costs are diverting billions into the hands of energy related capital market liquidity. Energy independance is creating the new farm program which is based on subsidizing biofuels instead of wheat and corn. Biofuels companies all know they have a dead horse without these subsidies so will innovate up the value chain to complex bio products for industry, chemical feedstocks, nutraceuticals, pharmaceuticals and so forth. The capital market wil drive genetic modifications to create ever more effecient production of the raw materials , microbial and processing plant network capabilities. The security and AI spinoffs may be the first military AI built to digest in real time all web connected data, public, and private, encrypted or not. The war is driving more greenhouse gasses into circulation and make the need for robust long range global meterological planning hardware and software. Perhaps weather modication technology including satellites are next. These are things industry and the free market might be too risk averse and fragmented to capitalize at such a rate if the direct order to get it done regardless of the costs was not backed by an open military expenditure checkbook. The sad thing is that instead of 60% profit the 60% is human death and property destruction and cultural genocide..but hey I'll leave it up to the rest of you to put the positive spin on those..... Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 3 01:57:02 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 11:57:02 +1000 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 03/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Stathis writes > > On 02/05/07, Heartland wrote: > > > > Stathis to Damien: > > > > And yet you leave your fortune to your tomorrow-self, rather than > blowing it > > > > all before you go to sleep tonight. How do you know that > tomorrow-self isn't > > > > just some guy who happens to have all your memories? If someone > claimed > > > > that criterion X is a sure sign of death, and it so happens that > criterion X > > > > occurs every night to every person, wouldn't you answer that - even > without > > > > knowing the details of criterion X - it must be a load of crap > because you > > > > know you *don't* die every night? > > (Actually, I agree with Stathis, but see below for why.) > > > > It seems that you first assume, "I don't die every night" and then > tailor your > > > definition of death and all the other statements about survival to fit > that > > > assumption. It should be the other way around. Only after you find out > what death > > > is first you can begin answering questions such as, "When do I die?" > > > > That's the very question I'm asking: how would you define death? > > Given that we can agree on whether or not criterion X has occurred, > > how do we then move on to decide whether or not X is a good > > criterion for death? > > To me, this is a lot of math-envy. Following Euclid, we must define all > our terms and prove all our propositions. Rubbish. So-called > "definitions" > in philosophy (which are not neologisms) need to be extensionsal, not > intensional. (Go look those words up for their philosophical usage.) > In other words, we *must* start with what death ordinarily means to > everyone in the world, and work backwards for any attempts at > refinement. > > Consider a historical analogy: What is temperature? Well, originally > people knew that there is hot and cold, warm and cool, etc., and knew > that it was a linear matter. They later, with scientific instruments, > attempted to elucidate more of the meaning of "hot", "cold", etc. > It would have been folly to have reached into their nether regions > and *defined* temperature as this or that. Can you hear sensible > people at the time refusing to go ahead, challenging each other > with "What do you *mean* by temperature? How do you *define* > it?" > > Now we *all* know what we mean by death in daily life! It's absurd! > Suppose that there is a really evil organization that you know of that > does kill people. (Pardon me for being circular, but this really is > elementary!) If you get a call tonight just before retiring, and they > say "By the way, we are killing *you* tonight. It will happen while > you are fast asleep?'' Would any of these crazy philosophers reply > "Oh, that's all right. I die every day anyway". > > OF COURSE NOT. > > Notions such as "maybe we die every instant" or "maybe we die > whenever our EEGs go flat", are misconceived, and very harmful > for understanding. Let's get serious! You can't get out of paradoxes > by making up definitions! Well, I thought I was making the same point you are making, and I'm sorry that my attempt at rigor has fallen flat. It seems to me that Heartland is claiming that there is some objective criterion for death which trumps what an ordinary person would understand by the term. That would mean that you could have a test and be informed that, even though you don't realise it, you died in the last hour (with the appropriate adjustment to the pronouns that that would entail). But all that would mean is that the test is not a valid test for what is commonly understood by the word "death"; or alternatively, that the newly-defined "death" is not the same as the thing that people have always worried about when they were worrying about dying, and perhaps we need a new word in its place (although it would be more sensible to keep the traditional meaning and come up with another word for what the test shows). To push your temperature analogy further, it would be like science discovering the melting point of tungsten, and then declaring that boiling water should no longer be called "hot". Even if everyone agreed that this was an appropriate linguistic change, no scientific discovery will have any bearing on the hot-like sensation you get when you put your hand into boiling water. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 02:05:09 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 19:05:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502175528.022fa5f0@satx.rr.com><710b78fc0705021702s9b2fe7dka37f064723a03a99@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070502190649.022c64b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <0b6701c78d27$85fa68d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Vas ist das "carf" oder "care-f"? Meine Aussie so gut nicht ist. L. Von ZeCorbin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Damien Broderick" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] C does not stand for the speed of light... (Colbert) > At 09:32 AM 5/3/2007 +0930, Emlyn wrote: > >>It's a generation gap, not a culture gap. I watched sesame street, >>pronounced "zed" as "zee" for years... > > Yep. When I was a lot closer to 20 or 30 than I am now, I wandered > into an Aussie rumpus room where the TV set was minding a bunch o' smalls. > > "This is a care-f," said the woman's voice, possibly from Sesame > Street, showing a carf ambling beside a cow. "Say `care-f'!" > > All the little Aussies dutifully cried: "`Caaaaaare-f'!" > > And yet--oddly enuff, Aussies maintain an idiosyncratic accent even > so, unless they've been to very posh schools. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 3 01:53:44 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 18:53:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pronunciation standards and cow lifeforms In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502190649.022c64b0@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200705030208.l4328WQq015739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > > "This is a care-f," said the woman's voice, possibly from Sesame > Street, showing a carf ambling beside a cow. "Say `care-f'!" > > All the little Aussies dutifully cried: "`Caaaaaare-f'! Damien Broderick This brings up two unrelated questions. We use the internet as a standardizer of spellings. Could not we figure out some means of making it function also as a standardizer of pronunciation? Consider that American society once had a standard of pronunciation back in the bad old days when our main information pipe was the television, or back further in the worse old days when there were only three channels. (Yes my young friends, it was that bad.) That standard was the evening newscaster Walter Cronkite. He sounded like he knew things, he had no detectable regional dialect. Everyone could understand him. But network news has been on the decline for some time, certainly ever since the internet showed up. Cronkite's network CBS has burned away its credibility as a news source, and besides we can read faster than Cronkite or anyone can talk, so now we use the internet. How can we use it to help standardize pronunciation? Since you mention cows and "carfs," we often see references to cowboys, usually in the rugged independent persona of the American cowboy. We can picture an American cowboy, with the leather chaps, the bandana, the six shooter etc. But nearly every country on this planet devours beef, so they must have cows too, so they need cowboys. Would not the European cowboy or cowhuman have all the same needs as her American counterpart, and would not the European cowpeople develop all the same characteristics? Would not the European cowperson share much of the same equipment, and develop the same attitudes, a similar independent cussedness? spike From velvethum at hotmail.com Thu May 3 02:10:05 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:10:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <09c201c78b8b$342b33b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0ac701c78c77$dfd7d7d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Heartland: >> 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. Lee: > 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. The rules of this calculus are all arbitrary, subjective (thus unverifiable) and messy. I really don't know why you keep asserting there is such a thing as "degree of death," and implying this assumption is unassailable. My usual response to such statements is, "Can you be little pregnant too?" Lee: > 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. Of course there are. Life and death *is* like 1 and 0. There's no such thing as "degree of life" either. A small flame or an inferno is still fire. Lee: > 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. It would still be a ship, wouldn't it? :-) Who cares to what degree Queen Mary contains Ship of Theseus if the thing still allows me to sail from point A to B? 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? Heartland: >> Not yet. Lee: > 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? The scenario itself was clear enough, yes. It's the way you answered the original question that was a bit less clear. >> 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). Heartland: >> 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. Lee: > Yes; I have not been especially consistent myself on to what degree > these other things are important. But how important to *identity* > are they? I might ask you, to what degree specific memories are important? After all, I could abstract a single memory from specific memories of the people who went to a zoo and file it under "Standard Zoo Experience." There's nothing special about our memories. The higher the abstraction level, the more alike they become (eventually approaching the same type). Actually, in light of this, I would like to update/retract my quoted comment above. Memory is a poor determinant of who we are, if at all. An alien examining humans would have a similarly hard time identifying essential differences between individuals as we would identifying essential differences between individual ants. None of our personal memories are terribly special, important or worth preserving. They are a luxury, not a necessity. Heartland: >> 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? Lee: > Ya know, it's just this prejudice I have, ya see? So your motivation to preserve memories reduces to a personal prejudice? I'm afraid you have to do better than that, Lee. I would like you to tell me precisely what's hiding behind that prejudice. Only then we can move on to the *really* good stuff. Perhaps Stathis will take the bait. :-) H From velvethum at hotmail.com Thu May 3 02:20:28 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:20:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? References: <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer><0ae501c78c7d$81e4bac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070502104206.GD17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: Stathis to Heartland: >> One of the problems in this debate is that the terminology can seem to >> imply the conclusion which is at issue in the first place. This is >> where I find the concept of the observer moment useful. An observer >> moment, or OM, unambiguously specifies an instance of conscious >> experience. Even if all hell breaks loose with duplications, we can Eugen to Stathis: > It's hardly a moment, though. "Conscious experience", whatever that means. > implies a trajectory segment long enough for higher-order processes to > happen, which puts it into some 100 ms country. What Eugen points out is, of course, exactly what I've been trying to point out to you (Stathis) and others several times before by saying that any process (and minds are undoubtedly processes, not patterns) is undefined across time intervals = 0. This means that there's no such thing as a "snapshot of process." Using your terminology, there's no such thing as observer *moment.* If anything, there can only be observer *intervals.* Heartland: >>> It seems that you first assume, "I don't die every night" and then >>> tailor your >>> definition of death and all the other statements about survival to >>> fit that >>> assumption. It should be the other way around. Only after you find >>> out what death >>> is first you can begin answering questions such as, "When do I die?" Stathis: >> That's the very question I'm asking: how would you define death? >> Given that we can agree on whether or not criterion X has occurred, >> how do we then move on to decide whether or not X is a good >> criterion for death? First we should decide what death means and that will inform us when death occurs, not the other way around. (Lee, I completely disagree with you on this point too.) Definition of death should follow from a definition of life. Life is a physical (dynamic) process (its activity, to be precise), not a (static) pattern. Absence of that activity is death even though I realize this is not immediately obvious. Lee to Stathis: > Notions such as "maybe we die every instant" or "maybe we die > whenever our EEGs go flat", are misconceived, and very harmful > for understanding. Let's get serious! You can't get out of paradoxes > by making up definitions! Paradoxes indicate that there's something wrong with your definitions, assumptions or derivation. Correcting definitions so they don't lead to paradoxes later is exactly the right course of action. Stathis to Lee: >>>> The alternative situation >>>> is to have memories removed and false memories implanted while you >>>> are asleep. If this were to happen to a sufficient extent tonight, >>>> then it would be equivalent to death. Heartland: >>> Wouldn't you agree that this is an arbitrary definition of death? Stathis: >> The arbitrariness of the definition of death - yours and mine - is >> what is at issue. Yes. You and many others define it in terms of likeness. I define it in terms of utility. I argue that utility has priority over likeness as the latter is a consequence of the former. Survival should be about preservation of our ability to derive benefit rather than about preservation of likeness. Heartland: >>> Wouldn't you agree that this is an arbitrary definition of death? After all, >>> every >>> portion of Lee's body would function properly and without >>> interruptions, including >>> the brain. Would it really make sense to say Lee died during the >>> night even though >>> Lee's body (all of it) has remained in perfect health throughout the >>> night? Would >>> you be successful in convincing any practicing physician to issue a >>> death certificate for the "deceased?" Stathis: >> Losing all your memories and personality would be like the end stage >> of dementia. If you knew you were going to wake up tomorrow in this >> state it might be a little bit better than not waking up at all, but >> not much better. The status of these patients in hospital is similar >> to the status of patients in a persistent vegetative state, except >> that there is sometimes a hope that the latter might recover. But the guy who wakes up can still score 136 on an IQ test and remember exactly what happened 20 years ago. His body and mind are still healthy, yet you argue that death certificate should have been issued. Stathis to Lee: >>>> So you could physically die but survive mentally, Heartland: >>> Then I'm afraid you believe in soul. Mental supervenes on the >>> physical. If the >>> physical is no more, the mental is no more too. Stathis: >> I believe that the mind can survive in different hardware. Okay, that's better. Stathis: You have agreed to as much when you allowed that swapping out the atoms in >> your brain for "different" atoms does not necessarily kill you. Yes. Stathis: >> However, you claim that even brief interruption of the activity in >> the brain *does* kill you. If the mental supervenes on the physical, >> and the same atoms are going about their business in the same way a >> moment later, then the same mental process should be being >> implemented despite the interruption. Obviously you're using the word "same" as in "same type," not as in "same instance." You're not showing inconsistencies within my own argument, but merely pointing out that this argument is inconsistent with your beliefs. What I'm saying is supposed to be inconsistent with your beliefs. :-) Stathis: That is, if the >> post-interruption physical state is exactly the same as if it would >> have been had there been no interruption, and yet the interruption >> gives rise to a different person, then the difference must be due to >> some non-physical factor. Worse than that, the difference must be >> due to some non-mental factor as well, since if the physical state >> is the same the mental state must also be the same. So the >> interruption causes a non-physical, non-mental change which results >> in one person dying and another being born in their place. Even if >> this were coherent (and I don't believe it is), it would imply the >> existence of a soul. Here's the deal. If you assume "same" to mean "same type," you can accuse me of a belief in soul and be "right" within your own framework of assumptions. If I assume "same" to mean "same instance," I can show you (and I think I did) that you believe in souls too and I'm going to be "right" as well. Of course, I knew from the beginning that we would be locked in the stalemate like this which is precisely why I offered you "master and servant" scenario to think about right at the beginning of our discussion hoping you would reevaluate your ideas about what it means to survive. Should survival reduce to preservation of some degree of my likeness (type), as Lee suggests, or should it reduce to preservation of my (current instance's) ability to derive benefit which is what I advocate? In other words, what should survive and why? H. From velvethum at hotmail.com Thu May 3 02:29:24 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:29:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer><0ae501c78c7d$81e4bac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0af701c78cd3$b980c2c0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Lee: > One needs to phrase "I-now" and "I-before" much much more carefully > to avoid misunderstanding. I can see why John got upset at that > phrase. But if you had written instead, "Just because an entity legally known > and univerally recognized as Mr. X at time 1 believes that entity > universally recognized at time 0 survived, does not make it true". > > Do you or do you not concede that this would have been clearer, and > would have very possibly prevented John Clark from misunderstanding > you? I'm sure the heckler would still call for my immediate stoning even if I used your phrase. It should be abundantly clear by now that it doesn't really matter what I say at this point. :-) H. From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 3 02:40:33 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 22:40:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] War and technological progress In-Reply-To: <0aea01c78c83$1d6a5220$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502223811.041ddc10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:25 PM 5/1/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: snip >And if the West were to stop exporting filth around the world, stop >corrupting the Muslim youth with everything from clothing styles to >bad attitudes, tendentious movies, acceptance of homosexuality, >defiance of parents, and so on and on, and also were to >become pure isolationists, stop being on Israel's side, profusely >apologize for placing troops on the Sacred Soil of Saudi Arabia >to repel aggression in Kuwait, etc., yes, Al Qaeda might very well >turn its attention elsewhere. EP theory says no. There is nothing that the Western countries can do that will keep them from being targets of attacks by Al Qaeda. The drive comes from the local situation. Keith From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 02:11:57 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 19:11:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] war and technological progress Message-ID: <602833.18952.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> BillK wrote: I don't do political discussion. So Bush is irrelevant to my comments. > I respect your right to not engage in political discussion but I do think politics & presidents in the real world have *much* to do with whether or not we get the enlightened Transhumanist world we are hoping to one day live in. I believe some of the people on this list think there is a "purity" that comes from avoiding current political issues and leadership. BillK continues: 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: 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. > The list you gave is quite amazing. I think robot cars could save many lives considering how many humans (drunk or sober) tend to drive. It feels like every time I turn around I hear of another person who was killed while driving their car. I'm truly sick of it. When it comes to new tech coming down the pike don't forget all the effort and money going into the domestic "war on terror." The ability for computer software to successfully recognize and track people would have come about anyway, but things are moving along much faster due to the current climate. It is the implementation of some of these technologies which concerns me as an American citizen who values his civil liberties. I remember a Transhumanist friend telling me how bothered he was by all the "so-called" technological progress, which ultimately he viewed as meaningless. The people of his generation would still be "dying on time" due to anti-aging research being neglected, and so what was the point? In a very sarcastic tone he would say "they should all be buried with their favorite damn gadgets, since this is where the world's research and development money was spent!" John Grigg --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 02:26:18 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 19:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20070430092816.04586720@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <861121.46464.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Natasha Vita-More wrote: 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 > I"m grateful to Natasha for weighing in on this matter. I personally feel Brett and I had the right to discuss what we did and not be stopped. But on the other hand Eugene Leitl is a moderator and a prominent list contributor who I respect (and I will add, like). I suppose I thought I had a better feel for Eugene's personality (I have never met him in person) and I was surprised by the killthread order which seemed to come almost out of the blue. I cringed as I read Brett's response to Eugene. I generally really enjoy Brett's posts for their insights on world politics and where the U.S. fits in and so I was very sad to see Brett temporarily lose his cool. But I realize that can happen to almost anyone. Natasha wrote: >In hopes of resolution rather than slamming doors I also hope we can all learn from this and that no grudges will be held. Sincerely, John Grigg --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Thu May 3 03:06:28 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 20:06:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <1177914296.3449.262.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton ... > > > On 4/29/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > > > I had the good fortune while I was a Christian conservative... ... > > As far as I know there has not been a study of the religious background > of participants on this email list. However I would not be surprised > that there would be quite a few from fundamentalist backgrounds. And I > think there is a reason for this. > > My hypothesis is that fundamentalist religious movements often have a > strong emphasis on be doctrinally correct and thus place a high value on > study of the text of that religion... Fred Fred these are some very astute insights, thanks. As a former fundamentalist christian, now atheist, my view is very close to yours, with an addition. In any debate, the participants must find some basic agreement, without which there can be no meaningful discourse. In dealing with religious beliefs, I witness so much meaningless debate because there is disagreement on a most basic question. This question is not whether or not the belief is true, but rather what is the nature of the belief. The basic question upon which the participants must agree is this: does it matter whether or not a belief is true? Most of us here have a fundamentalist's outlook: of course it matters. But to many non-fundamentalist believers, it really does not matter whether or not a belief is true. The terms true and false do not really apply to their religion. For most, religion is a philosophy. It would be like asking is democrat or republican true? Those terms do not apply, these are philosophies. They hold some true and some false notions, with much gray area. A philosophy would not be like a science, in which true or false are applicable and it matters. Fundamentalists treat religion the same as a science. After thinking about this for years, long after realizing that the religion I knew was not true, I finally realized that it matters to me if my religion is true. I love true things. Religion should be treated as any scientific theory. In that sense, altho I am now an atheist, I still have the fundamentalist's outlook, ja? spike From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu May 3 03:01:47 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 23:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Putting God to Rest Message-ID: <311064.76726.qm@web37201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Samantha, I debated replying to your points as I feel I don't want to bore people and I don't feel like dealing with meta:) Here are my last thoughts and hope we can continue this offlist. I did enjoy your points and would like to discuss it further. Thanks for your input, Anna:) >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 .... There are a lot of people that believe in nonsense whether it be in the field of philosophy, science, math, physics, psychology, the inerrancy is taught to people. I could see why you would not respect someone that is harmfully teaching something. I believe most on this list would not allow anybody to teach inerrancy. >Depends on the "Religion". If 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. I agree but i'm not sure how you are using the word "Religion". Many people have their beliefs as to what religion represents to them. I believe as of date, that there are four factors when it comes to religion. The books, (scriptures, texts,writings, etc.), the preachers, the believers and the "unindentified beliefs". >>>>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. Yes I agree, I should have been more clear about that. We can still have rational debate about what scriptures make sense and we can still discuss what is being preached. Considering that she is an open minded individual, we can even discuss Transhumanism, cryonics, future technology etc. We don't necessarily discuss "God" as a spirit, as our images don't reflect in that area:) >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. Within any religious realm people believe in Something as opposed to Nothing. They become religious for that fact. Nothing means to me, "it's of no interest to me". The belief in unindentified beliefs as opposed to the disbelief of unindentified beliefs. I can relate to both. I did give the example that Isaac Newton was a scientist yet had religious beliefs. I respect both sides and feel that religious or not, it has no relevancy to this list. >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. I didn't want to go down any path of "if X then Y". I was trying to get the point accross about the common courtesy and respect for other people's beliefs. I apologize if that's the way you took it, it wasn't my intention. (I try not do cheap shots as it's against my religion:) >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. I brought up the fact that preachers in religious orders may/can/will/want to/etc., be harmful and may even create evil within the realm of unindentified beliefs. That does not mean that all religions, beliefs, and books cause such beliefs. >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. I know that I respect many on the list no matter what are their "unindentified beliefs". Obviously I find many on the list to be rational. In that, how they choose to label their Enlightment is irrelevant to me as long as ridicule on either side is taken out of the equation. There is no discussion within ridicule. I read that in psychology that ridicule is used to enhance one's own lack of self-confidence, i'm not sure if it is correct, but that's what I heard. >I have no "blatant hate" and it is very hateful of >you to say I do. Your responses seem contradictory to >me. Yes, my apology, (damn emotions:). Although at times I feel that your comments are rather harsh, I find your points rational and clear. >No you were not. You were telling atheists in effect >to shut up. Actually I was telling both sides to shut up and stop ridiculing. What's the point? Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca From randall at randallsquared.com Thu May 3 03:49:51 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 23:49:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <0A79BD0F-1CDC-474C-B2DB-EE8E23F0345A@randallsquared.com> On May 2, 2007, at 11:06 PM, spike wrote: > In any debate, the participants must find some basic agreement, > without > which there can be no meaningful discourse. In dealing with religious > beliefs, I witness so much meaningless debate because there is > disagreement > on a most basic question. This question is not whether or not the > belief is > true, but rather what is the nature of the belief. The basic > question upon > which the participants must agree is this: does it matter whether > or not a > belief is true? > > Most of us here have a fundamentalist's outlook: of course it > matters. But > to many non-fundamentalist believers, it really does not matter > whether or > not a belief is true. The terms true and false do not really apply > to their > religion. For most, religion is a philosophy. It would be like > asking is > democrat or republican true? Those terms do not apply, these are > philosophies. They hold some true and some false notions, with > much gray > area. A philosophy would not be like a science, in which true or > false are > applicable and it matters. Fundamentalists treat religion the same > as a > science. > > After thinking about this for years, long after realizing that the > religion > I knew was not true, I finally realized that it matters to me if my > religion > is true. I love true things. Religion should be treated as any > scientific > theory. In that sense, altho I am now an atheist, I still have the > fundamentalist's outlook, ja? > This is a wonderful post, and if there's still a post of the week or month or whatever, I nominate this one. Thanks, Spike! -- Randall Randall "This is a fascinating question, right up there with whether rocks fall because of gravity or being dropped, and whether 3+5=5+3 because addition is commutative or because they both equal 8." - Scott Aaronson From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 3 04:26:34 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 23:26:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1177914296.3449.262.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502232030.022ade40@satx.rr.com> At 08:06 PM 5/2/2007 -0700, spike wrote: >After thinking about this for years, long after realizing that the religion >I knew was not true, I finally realized that it matters to me if my religion >is true. I love true things. Religion should be treated as any scientific >theory. In that sense, altho I am now an atheist, I still have the >fundamentalist's outlook, ja? You don't have to have been a fundamentalist. I discussed something similar about being brought up Catholic (in my book FEROCIOUS MINDS): < Half a century and more ago, I was raised within an Australian working class family so fervently Roman Catholic, as vectored through a clergy steeped in Irish tradition, that its beliefs and chosen way of life seem to me now to have verged on derangement. The often vicious moralizing constraints of Catholicism--the kind I was exposed to from pulpit and primary school nuns, and later from Jesuit and Christian Brothers, and later again in the French-influenced seminary where I spent my last two years of school, aged 15 to 17--had the usual double impact. While I managed to avoid being sexually molested, still my relationships with my own body and with other people were at least somewhat harmed by wretched men and women terrified of the flesh yet apparently obsessed by it, a sorry saga that is now so boring and ubiquitous in the laments of Catholic and ex-Catholic writers world-wide that I will not tire you with it. At the same time, this ancient tradition of purportedly rational belief--Aristotle! Aquinas! Duns Scotus!--provided a durable framework for viewing the world as a place that made sense, that had moral depth and called out a certain strength of mind, if not always of heart, in those persuaded (or more often, in the first instance, brainwashed) by its principles. The odd thing about such an upbringing is that after you break free you retain a background metaphysics (think of James Joyce) that prevails even when you come to understand that in fact the universe is *not* intentional, was not designed by a higher intelligence. That it is, in fact, neither benign nor malign but just *there*, evolving in the darkness, cooling into eternity. Absurdly, you tend to respond to the world with an optimism that is strictly unfounded. (Of course, some luckless souls, like nauseated Jean-Paul Sartre or the Australian novelist Gerald Murnane, respond instead with a deeply irrational and lifelong terror. Curiously, theological fright can be a source of considerable art as well as personal heartache, or so I have observed without, I'm relieved to say, experiencing it.) Luckily, we live at a time when science and technology are yielding solutions to many of the miseries of human life. Perhaps, indeed, that will eventually include an answer to our otherwise inevitable mortality. Confidence in the human prospect is not now as fatuous or gratuitous as it was a thousand years ago, and is more firmly grounded than the famous optimism of the encyclopedic Enlightenment in the second half of the eighteenth century, crushed prematurely by Romanticism and the Terror in France, and then more dreadfully by murderous totalitarian ideologies in the twentieth century. Plainly, for an evolved consciousness in an uncaring universe, no `technical fix' for the drawbacks of life can solve these deep metaphysical conundrums. Still, the incessant biological decay that now causes us to age and die might be remedied within the next half century, granting us, or more plausibly our children or grandchildren, the space, time and basic comfort and security to work our way toward some answers that are not wholly contrived out of self-delusion. We find ourselves in an epoch I believe might become a full reawakening of the Enlightenment's best hopes. > Damien Broderick From sti at pooq.com Thu May 3 04:33:00 2007 From: sti at pooq.com (Stirling Westrup) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 00:33:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <463965FC.3050009@pooq.com> spike wrote: > After thinking about this for years, long after realizing that the religion > I knew was not true, I finally realized that it matters to me if my religion > is true. I love true things. Religion should be treated as any scientific > theory. In that sense, altho I am now an atheist, I still have the > fundamentalist's outlook, ja? This jives very well with my own outlook. When I posted earlier that I am one who is willing to be proven wrong in an argument, I began to wonder why I was different. I think it stems from a determination at a very young age that I want what I believe to be true. Not, mind you, that I want to falsely believe that I am right. I took the motto "Truth, at any cost." and have pretty much stuck to it. If someone proves me wrong in a debate, he had done me a service, and I tend to look at it that way. From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 3 05:11:43 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 22:11:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] War and technological progress In-Reply-To: References: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> Message-ID: <46396F0F.3070301@mac.com> BillK wrote: > 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. >> >> > > >> 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. > And many do not. Also wars are notoriously disruptive economically. We won't even get into the lives lost and all of those potentials gone. So why is this such an important point to you? If it is going nowhere and is not balance with other factors and costs then I don't really see much point. Driverless cars were being worked on quite separately from this war and I think your bit of googling can show you as much. What Darpa projects include and what would be and in many cases was being done otherwise could be explored if this was an objective discussion. I do not agree that new tech arrives quicker generally through war. And we most certainly are not in a fight for survival. - samantha > 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: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 3 05:24:35 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 22:24:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty In-Reply-To: <0b4701c78d0a$bccba300$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0b4701c78d0a$bccba300$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <46397213.8000303@mac.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > Amara writes > > >> After following a very random thought today, I checked in on the ISIL >> website news, and encountered this simple, charming animation "Introduction >> to the Philosophy of Liberty", written by, yes, the same Ken Schoolland. >> >> http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html >> Ten minutes Flash Animation. >> >> Many basic principles, such as self-ownershop, as seen in this animation, >> are at the root of transhumanist thought. I appreciated how they >> carefully constructed the philosophical principles, building block by >> building block (as they should ... :-) ). >> > > Well, I started to watch that with an anticipation of disappointment, because > I have become increasingly disillusioned by the hyper-individualist ethos of > not only many of those around me, but to which in some measure I myself > had at various times succumbed. > > But I was greatly reassured. Just as you said, it carefully laid the foundations > of human liberty, and emphasized that our lives are our *own*, and no one > else's. It went on to explain how our time and the products of time (our > privately created property) are also our own, and cannot be taken from us > by force without also taking our liberty. > > Unfortunately, about two-thirds of the way through, I began to notice that > something very important was missing. Nothing whatsoever was being said > about the Rule of Law. Yes, private property was emphasized, and rightly > so. But the other equally important foundation of progress and civilization > was not mentioned EVEN ONCE in the ten minute show. > > Nothing at all was said or implied about just how obedience to democratically > enacted laws is to be achieved! Rational law is not the same as "democratically enacted law". The latter can be and often are extremely deleterious and anti-liberty. Take the democratically enacted laws declaring war on some drugs as a case in point. In ten minutes it probably would not be possible to say what liberty consistent law would be like in much detail much less how such laws are to be enforced. You cannot meaningfully conflate the vast majority of "law breakers" as the law is today with murderers and thieves. Anti-anarchist arguments would need a lot cleaner and more careful development than the swipe presented here. There is nothing in not initiating force that say a gang initiating force should not be forcefully stopped. That their are specialist for counteracting the initiation of force changes things not at all. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 3 05:33:35 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 22:33:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] War and technological progress In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502223811.041ddc10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502223811.041ddc10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <4639742F.6040306@mac.com> Keith Henson wrote: > At 11:25 PM 5/1/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > > snip > > >> And if the West were to stop exporting filth around the world, stop >> corrupting the Muslim youth with everything from clothing styles to >> bad attitudes, tendentious movies, acceptance of homosexuality, >> defiance of parents, and so on and on, and also were to >> become pure isolationists, stop being on Israel's side, profusely >> apologize for placing troops on the Sacred Soil of Saudi Arabia >> to repel aggression in Kuwait, etc., yes, Al Qaeda might very well >> turn its attention elsewhere. >> > > EP theory says no. There is nothing that the Western countries can do that > will keep them from being targets of attacks by Al Qaeda. The drive comes > from the local situation. > > I would rather know what we can do to keep our government or some within it from stealing all our freedoms after staging things like 911 to stampede the people. Focus on Al Qaeda is studiously missing the point and letting the evil wizard[s] behind the curtain continue. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Thu May 3 05:42:16 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 22:42:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <46397638.5010008@mac.com> spike wrote: >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton >> > ... > >>>> On 4/29/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >>>> >>>> I had the good fortune while I was a Christian conservative... >>>> > ... > >> As far as I know there has not been a study of the religious background >> of participants on this email list. However I would not be surprised >> that there would be quite a few from fundamentalist backgrounds. And I >> think there is a reason for this. >> >> My hypothesis is that fundamentalist religious movements often have a >> strong emphasis on be doctrinally correct and thus place a high value on >> study of the text of that religion... Fred >> > > > > Fred these are some very astute insights, thanks. As a former > fundamentalist christian, now atheist, my view is very close to yours, with > an addition. > > In any debate, the participants must find some basic agreement, without > which there can be no meaningful discourse. In dealing with religious > beliefs, I witness so much meaningless debate because there is disagreement > on a most basic question. This question is not whether or not the belief is > true, but rather what is the nature of the belief. The basic question upon > which the participants must agree is this: does it matter whether or not a > belief is true? > > Most of us here have a fundamentalist's outlook: of course it matters. But > to many non-fundamentalist believers, it really does not matter whether or > not a belief is true. The terms true and false do not really apply to their > religion. For most, religion is a philosophy. It would be like asking is > democrat or republican true? Those terms do not apply, these are > philosophies. They hold some true and some false notions, with much gray > area. A philosophy would not be like a science, in which true or false are > applicable and it matters. Fundamentalists treat religion the same as a > science. > > After thinking about this for years, long after realizing that the religion > I knew was not true, I finally realized that it matters to me if my religion > is true. I love true things. Religion should be treated as any scientific > theory. In that sense, altho I am now an atheist, I still have the > fundamentalist's outlook, ja? > > hahaha. Not in the least. I would need to assume that the people that look at religion as really "philosophy" and that it would seem also assume that philosophy is not really philosophy and doesn't really require a love of truth and search for it but is more some rather murky "philosophy of life" are in fact the correct and most mature and "right" ones. But this is again as assumption of right vs. wrong and even true view versus false so this is no escape from your assumed position that to care about truth is to be a fundamentalist. I wish that fundamentalists cared about the truth. I do not believe that the majority of them do at all. They care only to assert that they have the only Truth while not needing to understand or inquire at all. This is not at all the same thing. But I am very sure you know that. - s From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 3 06:45:53 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 16:45:53 +1000 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: References: <092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <001801c78c6a$4b7a0b60$06084e0c@MyComputer> <0ae501c78c7d$81e4bac0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070502104206.GD17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 03/05/07, Heartland wrote: > > Stathis to Heartland: > >> One of the problems in this debate is that the terminology can seem > to > >> imply the conclusion which is at issue in the first place. This is > >> where I find the concept of the observer moment useful. An observer > >> moment, or OM, unambiguously specifies an instance of conscious > >> experience. Even if all hell breaks loose with duplications, we can > > Eugen to Stathis: > > It's hardly a moment, though. "Conscious experience", whatever that > means. > > implies a trajectory segment long enough for higher-order processes to > > happen, which puts it into some 100 ms country. > > What Eugen points out is, of course, exactly what I've been trying to > point out > to you (Stathis) and others several times before by saying that any > process (and > minds are undoubtedly processes, not patterns) is undefined across time > intervals = > 0. This means that there's no such thing as a "snapshot of process." Using > your > terminology, there's no such thing as observer *moment.* If anything, > there can > only be observer *intervals.* That's OK, my main purpose in making this point was to avoid confusion when the pronouns and proper names seem to refer to the "same" person when the whole argument is over what should qualify as "same", so you can consider the observer as extended over time as long as no-one is claiming there is some significant change during the interval. Having said that, it seems you are assuming as fundamental to physics that time is continuous and linear, whereas as far as I am aware discrete, and/or non-linear (i.e. block universe) time is consistent with all experimental observations. And even if it could be shown that time is continuous and linear, you still have the problem of how to conceptualise an infinitesimal interval, during which by definition there is no room for any change. First we should decide what death means and that will inform us when death > occurs, > not the other way around. (Lee, I completely disagree with you on this > point too.) > Definition of death should > follow from a definition of life. Life is a physical (dynamic) process > (its > activity, to be precise), not a (static) pattern. Absence of that activity > is death > even though I realize this is not immediately obvious. This is the problem. A lot of people will say that temporary suspension of the processes that characterise life is *not* death. I would go as far as suggesting that the great majority of people would say this. Where does this leave you with your definition? Who decides what death actually is? Stathis: > >> The arbitrariness of the definition of death - yours and mine - is > >> what is at issue. > > Yes. You and many others define it in terms of likeness. I define it in > terms of > utility. I argue that utility has priority over likeness as the latter is > a > consequence of the former. Survival should be about preservation of our > ability to > derive benefit rather than about preservation of likeness. You are assuming that which is at issue in this statement. I would say that what you are calling preservation of likeness *is* survival. To put it slightly differently, if it's only my likeness that survives after a period of interrupted neural activity, then it's also only my likeness that survives a period of normal neural activity. You have to come up with a reason why the interruption should change anything. Stathis: > >> I believe that the mind can survive in different hardware. > > Okay, that's better. > > Stathis: > You have agreed to as much when you allowed that swapping out the atoms in > >> your brain for "different" atoms does not necessarily kill you. > > Yes. > > Stathis: > >> However, you claim that even brief interruption of the activity in > >> the brain *does* kill you. If the mental supervenes on the physical, > >> and the same atoms are going about their business in the same way a > >> moment later, then the same mental process should be being > >> implemented despite the interruption. > > Obviously you're using the word "same" as in "same type," not as in "same > instance." You're not showing inconsistencies within my own argument, but > merely > pointing out that this argument is inconsistent with your beliefs. What > I'm saying > is supposed to be inconsistent with your beliefs. :-) You seem to be agreeing that there might be absolutely no difference between the instance and the type, other than the past history. Suppose you discover that yesterday there was a nanosecond interruption in your brain processes with the result that today you are a different instance of Heartland. Heartland1's family are very upset at this news, and out of pity for them you (Heartland2) decide to sacrifice your life to bring back Heartland1 by means of time travel. So you send someone back into the past to prevent the brain interruption which caused Heartland1's death. As a result - nothing physical or mental changes. Your brain is exactly the same, and your thoughts are exactly the same, because the brief interruption (although it killed you) did not result in any observable change the next day. However, despite this, the original Heartland1 is now still alive and Heartland2 is dead. Heartland1 and his family rejoice, while Heartland2 doesn't do anything - he is dead and gone. So you could be alive or dead, one person or a different person, with no physical or mental change whatsoever. Isn't this a little strange? Stathis: > That is, if the > >> post-interruption physical state is exactly the same as if it would > >> have been had there been no interruption, and yet the interruption > >> gives rise to a different person, then the difference must be due to > >> some non-physical factor. Worse than that, the difference must be > >> due to some non-mental factor as well, since if the physical state > >> is the same the mental state must also be the same. So the > >> interruption causes a non-physical, non-mental change which results > >> in one person dying and another being born in their place. Even if > >> this were coherent (and I don't believe it is), it would imply the > >> existence of a soul. > > Here's the deal. If you assume "same" to mean "same type," you can accuse > me of a > belief in soul and be "right" within your own framework of assumptions. If > I assume > "same" to mean "same instance," I can show you (and I think I did) that > you > believe in souls too and I'm going to be "right" as well. Of course, I > knew from > the beginning that we would be locked in the stalemate like this which is > precisely > why I offered you "master and servant" scenario to think about right at > the > beginning of our discussion hoping you would reevaluate your ideas about > what it > means to survive. Should survival reduce to preservation of some degree of > my > likeness (type), as Lee suggests, or should it reduce to preservation of > my > (current instance's) > ability to derive benefit which is what I advocate? In other words, what > should > survive and why? Within the framework you are proposing, I argue that it is impossible to distinguish between an instance and a type. I could claim that your instance changes whenever you observe a red light and you would have no counterargument that could not also be used against your claim that your instance changes whenever your brain activity is temporarily interrupted. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 3 07:03:15 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:03:15 +1000 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <1177914296.3449.262.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 03/05/07, spike wrote: Most of us here have a fundamentalist's outlook: of course it matters. But > to many non-fundamentalist believers, it really does not matter whether or > not a belief is true. The terms true and false do not really apply to > their > religion. For most, religion is a philosophy. It would be like asking is > democrat or republican true? Those terms do not apply, these are > philosophies. They hold some true and some false notions, with much gray > area. A philosophy would not be like a science, in which true or false > are > applicable and it matters. Fundamentalists treat religion the same as a > science. Liberal theologians sometimes treat religion as if it is obviously just fantasy: we know that there are no virgin births, people don't rise from the dead, etc. (at least not 2000 years ago), but they are inspiring stories nonetheless, like the mythology of any culture. Would you say that these people are more or less honest than the fundamentalists, who after all have to convince themselves of something a rational person would not believe and call it "faith"? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 07:35:29 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 00:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Putting God to Rest In-Reply-To: <311064.76726.qm@web37201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <805521.57863.qm@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I just wanted to say to Anna Taylor (and anyone else who is interested) that the Mormon Transhumanist Association website would be a good potential place to continue this discussion. You certainly don't have to be a Mormon or even a Theist to post there. http://transfigurism.org/community/ Best wishes, John Grigg Anna Taylor wrote: Hi Samantha, I debated replying to your points as I feel I don't want to bore people and I don't feel like dealing with meta:) Here are my last thoughts and hope we can continue this offlist. I did enjoy your points and would like to discuss it further. Thanks for your input, Anna:) >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 .... There are a lot of people that believe in nonsense whether it be in the field of philosophy, science, math, physics, psychology, the inerrancy is taught to people. I could see why you would not respect someone that is harmfully teaching something. I believe most on this list would not allow anybody to teach inerrancy. >Depends on the "Religion". If 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. I agree but i'm not sure how you are using the word "Religion". Many people have their beliefs as to what religion represents to them. I believe as of date, that there are four factors when it comes to religion. The books, (scriptures, texts,writings, etc.), the preachers, the believers and the "unindentified beliefs". >>>>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. Yes I agree, I should have been more clear about that. We can still have rational debate about what scriptures make sense and we can still discuss what is being preached. Considering that she is an open minded individual, we can even discuss Transhumanism, cryonics, future technology etc. We don't necessarily discuss "God" as a spirit, as our images don't reflect in that area:) >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. Within any religious realm people believe in Something as opposed to Nothing. They become religious for that fact. Nothing means to me, "it's of no interest to me". The belief in unindentified beliefs as opposed to the disbelief of unindentified beliefs. I can relate to both. I did give the example that Isaac Newton was a scientist yet had religious beliefs. I respect both sides and feel that religious or not, it has no relevancy to this list. >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. I didn't want to go down any path of "if X then Y". I was trying to get the point accross about the common courtesy and respect for other people's beliefs. I apologize if that's the way you took it, it wasn't my intention. (I try not do cheap shots as it's against my religion:) >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. I brought up the fact that preachers in religious orders may/can/will/want to/etc., be harmful and may even create evil within the realm of unindentified beliefs. That does not mean that all religions, beliefs, and books cause such beliefs. >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. I know that I respect many on the list no matter what are their "unindentified beliefs". Obviously I find many on the list to be rational. In that, how they choose to label their Enlightment is irrelevant to me as long as ridicule on either side is taken out of the equation. There is no discussion within ridicule. I read that in psychology that ridicule is used to enhance one's own lack of self-confidence, i'm not sure if it is correct, but that's what I heard. >I have no "blatant hate" and it is very hateful of >you to say I do. Your responses seem contradictory to >me. Yes, my apology, (damn emotions:). Although at times I feel that your comments are rather harsh, I find your points rational and clear. >No you were not. You were telling atheists in effect >to shut up. Actually I was telling both sides to shut up and stop ridiculing. What's the point? Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 3 08:08:01 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 10:08:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: References: <20070502104206.GD17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20070503080801.GH17691@leitl.org> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:20:28PM -0400, Heartland wrote: > > It's hardly a moment, though. "Conscious experience", whatever that means. > > implies a trajectory segment long enough for higher-order processes to > > happen, which puts it into some 100 ms country. > > What Eugen points out is, of course, exactly what I've been trying to point out > to you (Stathis) and others several times before by saying that any process (and > minds are undoubtedly processes, not patterns) is undefined across time intervals = A process is a spatiotemporal pattern. Exhaustively described by the sum of 3d coordinate changes of atoms across the fourth axis, time. (Classically). Of course the mental processes occur many storeys upstairs, involving structures in nm-um range and temporal processes in ms range. > 0. This means that there's no such thing as a "snapshot of process." Using your Of course there is. Both in numerical simulations are snapshots essential (because hardware dies, and then you roll back to the last snapshot) and in physiology. Neural processes routinely reassemble themselves after a disruption (grand mal, concussion, anaesthesia, hypothermia, etc.). Cryonic suspension of a given personal process is a snapshot. > terminology, there's no such thing as observer *moment.* If anything, there can > only be observer *intervals.* Yes, I agree that observer-moments do not make much sense. The length of the interval is not sharply defined either, there are subconscious processes which are really quick, and higher-level processes (the sum of underwater activity) which can take their sweet time. > First we should decide what death means and that will inform us when death occurs, Death has no meaning at all, especially if you haven't agreed where to draw that arbitrary, rapidly receding line in the sand. Critical care medicine routinely keeps pushing the limits back, and by golly, we have some good chances to see that boundary pushed back indefinitely at least for organ transplant purposes. And the brain is just an organ. > not the other way around. (Lee, I completely disagree with you on this point too.) > Definition of death should > follow from a definition of life. Life is a physical (dynamic) process (its > activity, to be precise), not a (static) pattern. Absence of that activity is death > even though I realize this is not immediately obvious. Why don't you stick to information-theoretic death. It's a classic. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Thu May 3 08:16:48 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 01:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <259627.59434.qm@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> On 03/05/07, spike wrote: Most of us here have a fundamentalist's outlook: of course it matters. But to many non-fundamentalist believers, it really does not matter whether or not a belief is true. The terms true and false do not really apply to their religion. For most, religion is a philosophy. It would be like asking is democrat or republican true? Those terms do not apply, these are philosophies. They hold some true and some false notions, with much gray area. A philosophy would not be like a science, in which true or false are applicable and it matters. Fundamentalists treat religion the same as a science. Stathis wrote: Liberal theologians sometimes treat religion as if it is obviously just fantasy: we know that there are no virgin births, people don't rise from the dead, etc. (at least not 2000 years ago), but they are inspiring stories nonetheless, like the mythology of any culture. Would you say that these people are more or less honest than the fundamentalists, who after all have to convince themselves of something a rational person would not believe and call it "faith"? > Retired Episcopal Bishop (and some say heretic), John Shelby Spong, wrote "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture." I listened to him speak when he visited Anchorage, Alaska and found him to be a capable orator who amazingly did not have horns or a tail. There was a sizeable public showing to listen to him as he tried to build on common ground regarding the life of Christ. Afterward, I told him about my two years as a Mormon missionary in the Bible Belt and he smiled and wryly said "well, you must know about rejection, too..." John --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 3 08:49:02 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 18:49:02 +1000 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 03/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > John writes > > > That pretty much sums up the absurdity of [Heartland's] position, the > idea that I > > need objective proof in order for me to believe I am having a subject > > experience. > > Here I have to agree with Heartland a little more than I agree with > you: Yes, you have to believe in your subjective experience as real, > and indeed, the most real thing that there is. But you may be > simply mistaken about the way that things *seem* to you subjectively. > It may be that you are *not* the same John Clark as the world knew > yesterday. You're clever enough that I don't need to spell that out > in a thought experiment. > > So subjectivity---just as he says---is a quite *useless* social concept, > quite useless to throw around in intelligent discussion with other people > who have no access to your subjectivity. Hell, for all I know, John > Clark may be a Giant Lookup Table and not be conscious at all! I > am the only thing in the universe that I know for sure is conscious, > although it would be stupid to bet against other people being so. The main reason you are interested in objective facts about yourself is so that your subjective experiences can continue in the same manner as they always have. It wouldn't be very good if you objectively behaved like Lee but in fact were a zombie (assuming such a thing is possible). On the other hand, it wouldn't be so bad if your subjective experience survived in a rich virtual reality environment, encoded in such a way that no external observer could prove that it was in fact you. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu May 3 09:53:56 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 19:53:56 +1000 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <20070503080801.GH17691@leitl.org> References: <20070502104206.GD17691@leitl.org> <20070503080801.GH17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 03/05/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: Yes, I agree that observer-moments do not make much sense. The length > of the interval is not sharply defined either, there are subconscious > processes which are really quick, and higher-level processes (the sum > of underwater activity) which can take their sweet time. We could imagine splitting up the process of observation as finely as physics will allow, halting and restarting a cognitive process in mid-thought. A single observation could then be spread over multiple physically separate implementations. Then there is the issue of where one observation ends and another begins. Consider an interval t1t2t3, during which a person observes a moving object. Say a single unit t is too short a period for a perceptible change, so the object is perceived only after the interval t1t2. But then what about the interval t2t3? It is long enough for perception to occur, but that then means there is a difference between the perception during t1t2 and the perception during t2t3, when we previously said that t was too short an interval to perceive a change. The division between the intervals t could coincide with physically separate instantiations. So if intervals of consciousness can be divided up at all, I think it is not unreasonable to divide them up arbitrarily, as the context dictates. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Thu May 3 12:18:37 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 14:18:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] pronunciation standards and cow lifeforms References: <200705030208.l4328WQq015739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <000301c78d7d$2e29fac0$c4bd1f97@archimede> > Would not the European cowboy or cowhuman > have all the same needs as her American counterpart, > and would not the European cowpeople develop > all the same characteristics? > spike Cows? I didn't see a cow in the last 20 years, around here. They are gone. But in Tuscany, I suppose, still there is that old super-breed called "Chianina" http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/chianina/ http://www.ilr.it/tuscany/siena/valdichiana/Chianina/Default.htm Ever seen a Florentine steak? Usually it weighs around 2.0/2.5 pounds, and it comes from a "Chianina" http://italianfood.about.com/b/a/257556.htm http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistecca_fiorentina Between Rome and Naples still there is the "Bubalus Frisch" (Buffalo, or Bufalo in Italian) and those famous "mozzarelle di Bufalo" http://www.viaitalia.net/mozzarella_di_bufala.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozzarella_di_Bufala_Campana But as you can see (link below) both the Buffalos and the Chianina cows do not live 'en plein air' anymore http://www.fornobravo.com/brick_oven_cooking/pizza_ingredients/ mozzarella/mozzarella1.html From jonkc at att.net Thu May 3 13:41:27 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:41:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <00fc01c78d88$c703eb60$a1044e0c@MyComputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Corbin" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? > John writes > >> Stathis: >>>> If I-now think I've survived as a continuation of I-before, then >>>> that's >>>> what matters in survival. >> >> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: >> >> > That doesn't matter at all. >> >> No, what matters to you is not continuity of process but continuity of >> atoms; > > I still don't understand why you persist in making this claim. Would > not Heartland instantly agree that each second he loses and gains > billions of atoms? Why, for all we know, he'd be perfectly happy > to have a heart bypass operation, and lose quadrillions upon > quadrillions of his atoms. Moreover, it would not surprise me in > the least if he'd quickly sign up for hippocampus replacement, > if it guaranteed a wonderful memory enhancement. (Now of course, > his guarantees would be more stringent than yours and mine; he > might insist upon being conscious throughout the operation, for > instance.) BUT ISN'T IT PATENTLY WRONG TO KEEP > ON SAYING THAT FOR HIM IT'S ALL ABOUT ATOMS?? > >> and what matters to you is objective temporal continuity, subjective >> continuity doesn't matter at all to subjective experience (!), at least >> according to you. >> >>> Why should it matter? >> >> Because subjectivity is the most important thing in the universe. >> >> > Of course it's subjective so it's not valid evidence at all. >> >> That pretty much sums up the absurdity of your position, the idea that I >> need objective proof in order for me to believe I am having a subject >> experience. > > Here I have to agree with Heartland a little more than I agree with > you: Yes, you have to believe in your subjective experience as real, > and indeed, the most real thing that there is. But you may be > simply mistaken about the way that things *seem* to you subjectively. > It may be that you are *not* the same John Clark as the world knew > yesterday. You're clever enough that I don't need to spell that out > in a thought experiment. > > So subjectivity---just as he says---is a quite *useless* social concept, > quite useless to throw around in intelligent discussion with other people > who have no access to your subjectivity. Hell, for all I know, John > Clark may be a Giant Lookup Table and not be conscious at all! I > am the only thing in the universe that I know for sure is conscious, > although it would be stupid to bet against other people being so. > >> The feeling of being alive is a subjective experience and I don't >> need your precious space time trajectories of my individual atoms to >> prove >> to me that I feel alive any more than I need proof that the sensation I >> feel >> when I put my hand in a fire I find unpleasant. Direct experience >> outranks >> even the Scientific Method. > > Who, besides you, gives a ---- about your subjective experience? > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 3 13:44:35 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 14:44:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] pronunciation standards and cow lifeforms In-Reply-To: <200705030208.l4328WQq015739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070502190649.022c64b0@satx.rr.com> <200705030208.l4328WQq015739@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/07, spike wrote: > Since you mention cows and "carfs," we often see references to cowboys, > usually in the rugged independent persona of the American cowboy. We can > picture an American cowboy, with the leather chaps, the bandana, the six > shooter etc. But nearly every country on this planet devours beef, so they > must have cows too, so they need cowboys. Would not the European cowboy or > cowhuman have all the same needs as her American counterpart, and would not > the European cowpeople develop all the same characteristics? Would not the > European cowperson share much of the same equipment, and develop the same > attitudes, a similar independent cussedness? > Nope, pardner. We euro cowboys tend to frequent discos and nightclubs. :) Cowboys developed in the Americas and Australia, where the climate was dry and grass sparse and large herds of cattle required vast amounts of land in order to obtain sufficient forage. The need to cover distances greater than a person on foot could manage gave rise to the development of the horseback-mounted cowboy. They were also used on large cattle drives to markets or railheads. Europe has pretty well been fenced in since before the US began, and has lush green grassy meadows for the cows. BillK From jonkc at att.net Thu May 3 13:45:44 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:45:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future? References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> "Lee Corbin" > Would not Heartland instantly agree that each second he loses and gains > billions of atoms? Ask him. I'm the one who first brought up that point but I never got a coherent response from him over it. > Who, besides you, gives a ---- about your subjective experience? Nobody, but you care about your subjective experience and want it to continue, that's why you jump out of the way when a car is coming toward you. And I believe the missing word is "fuck". Me: >>what matters to you is not continuity of process but continuity of atoms; You: >I still don't understand why you persist in making this claim. Even Heartland admits that you could stop a mind and then start it up again there would be no way for it to know anything had happened unless it could observe the outside world. There would be continuity of the subjective process, however Heartland insists that is not important, that is to say subjective experience is not important to subjectivity, the important thing is that the atom's behavior has not been continuous. And that is why he is High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult. > BUT ISN'T IT PATENTLY WRONG TO KEEP ON SAYING THAT FOR HIM IT'S ALL ABOUT ATOMS?? No it is not. For well over a year we exchanged post after post with him talking about space time trajectories of atoms and Bose Einstein Condensations trying to convene me that atoms are unique and they somehow confer that property to human beings. To this day he has not retracted one word of it. And I'm supposed to pretend that never happened? I don't think so. On May 9 2006 I listed 11 very specific objections I had to his ideas, he never responded. 1) Mr. Heartland says having someone tomorrow who remembers being you today is not sufficient to conclude you have survived into tomorrow, he says more is required but he never explains what or why. This leads to rather odd conclusions, like anesthesia is equivalent to death and you may have died yesterday and not even know it. Mr. Hartland thinks your subjectivity is an "illusion" (illusions are a subjective phenomena by the way) created by a copy of you, Mr. Hartland says he hates this and thinks it is a great tragedy, but even if true he never explains why this is supposed to be upsetting. 2) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but he ignores the fact that our atoms get recycled every few weeks. 3) Mr. Heartland says atoms are what makes us unique, but science can find no difference between one atom and another. Mr. Heartland points out, quite correctly, that subjectivity and consciousness are what we should be concerned about, but then he says particular atoms are what makes our consciousness unique. It's true that the scientific method can not investigate consciousness directly so nobody will ever be able to prove the idea is wrong, nobody will ever prove that there isn't a difference between atoms that the scientific method can't detect, but theologians since the middle ages have been making the exact same argument about the existence of the human soul. It seems a little too pat that the only difference between atoms is something the scientific method can not see but nevertheless is of profound astronomical importance, it's just like saying atoms have souls. 4) Mr. Heartland says the history (or if you want to sound scientific brainy and cool "the space time trajectory") of atoms are what makes atoms unique; but many atoms have no history and even for those that do it is not permanent, the entire record of an atom's past exploits can be erased from the universe and it's not difficult to do. This is not theory, this has been proven in the lab and any theory that just ignores that fact can not be called scientific. 5) Mr. Heartland insists his theory is consistent and logically rigorous but he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest questions about it, like is A the original or B. Instead Mr. Heartland thinks informing us that A=A and B=B is sufficient. 6) Several times Mr. Heartland informed us that location is vital in determining which mind is which, but he never explained why because mind by itself can never determine it's location. Also Mr. Heartland never explains the position relative to what as we've known for over a century that absolute position is meaningless. 7) Mr. Heartland, wrote "This "self" concept is too overrated in a sense that it has no influence over whether my subjective experience exists or not" and then he wrote "My copy" is not me". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 8) Mr. Heartland wrote "Mind is not a brain" and he was absolutely correct about that, but when I asked him if mind is more like a brick or more like a symphony he said mind "is definitely more like a brick, a 4-D object". This would seem to belie Mr. Heartland's claim of rigorous logical consistency. 9) As noted above Mr. Heartland thinks mind is a "4-D mind object", but he is unable on unwilling to give the 4-D coordinates of the vital things the constitute mind, like fun or red or fast or logic or love or fear or the number eleven or my memory of yesterday. 10) Mr. Heartland wrote "creation of two identical brains, like writing identical number types "1" twice, would produce two separate instances of the same brain type" but if so he never explained why two calculators that add 2 +2 would not produce answers that were profoundly different; and if they are profoundly different he never explained how it is possible to do science. 11) Mr. Heartland insists that if two CD's are synchronized and playing the same symphony then two symphonies are playing, but a CD is just a number thus there must be profound differences even between the same number, and 9 is not equal to 9. If true Mr. Heartland is unable to explain how it is nevertheless possible to do science. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 3 14:17:52 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 10:17:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Back to Causes of War In-Reply-To: <0ad801c78c7b$63eb75b0$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> <5.1.0.14.0.20070501160428.0406a860@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502094316.02c52020@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:31 PM 5/1/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Keith writes, quoting Gat snip > > _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. It is. And my case, if you read EP memes and war, is that wars are largely if not entirely due to human psychological mechanisms out of our stone age past. > >>And the original main purpose of this thread and its predecessors was > >>to address the causes of all wars, not just primitive fighting. snip > >>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. Right. And while there was no doubt feedback both directions, I make the case that the sea change in wars was due to the population on average *not* seeing a bleak future. > >>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. It is not the reality of the current situation that activates stone age psychological traits, but perception of that reality no matter how divergent perception is from physical reality. And leaders don't take a country into wars without population support. Now they are able to play off the stone age traits, especially lying about being attacked or in the current war, lying about who was responsible. snip > > 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. Xenophobic memes and the genes for being infected by xenophobic memes are entirely different things. A trait that deep in our evolution isn't something people could lose at least without gene surgery impossible to imagine right now. The spread and high influence of xenophobic memes is (in this EP model) a conditional response. Humans are not automatically xenophobic like chimps are. Xenophobia in a population rises when people (on average) see a bleak future. I make the case this evolved trait is mechanistic. The way to correct a bleak future back in the stone age was to kill neighbors which is what xenophobic memes work the warriors up to. The *other* and faster way to get heavy xenophobia going is to be attacked. After 9/11 several murders happened that were the expression of instant xenophobia. (Mostly against non-Arabs.) > >>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. Missed making this point, but there is no doubt that the vast population movements were due to population pressure, that is population growth beyond what could be supported by the local ecosystem/economy. > >>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. > >To some degree, we have perhaps been arguing between distal and proximal >causes. But it's not always "madness" either. It's often a good survival >strategy. Especially in some some circumstances as Machiavelli explained. Oh, I agree. But what is it that survives? > > 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. > >In the forest fire case, yes, it can come to be an inevitability. That is, if >a people becomes deprived enough, then they will either individually >or socially get violent. But to the degree---again---that this is also a >historical inquiry, then we simply have that this does *not* explain >all modern wars. Too many wars occurred in which evidence of over- >population, resource depravation, etc., is not present. None of these are needed to trip wars. As I mentioned with the US Civil War, all it took was perception in the south of a bleak future, that is without slaves. And they were right. > > 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. > >You don't think that of all the wars in Europe between 1300 and >1800 I could not find ones in which economic growth on both >sides was as high as the population growth? Given the model, you can inject factors anywhere in the chain. False perception of a bleak future would do to up the gain of xenophobic memes leading to war. False belief the country had been attacked would do it. In fact this last is *widely* exploited by leaders, consider the US entry into the Vietnam war or the events that triggered the 1846 war with Mexico or the Spanish American war. > > 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. > >I would counter that they are *less* likely to go on a rampage. >But even the U.S.---as seen by its enemies in the rest of the >world---has gone on a rampage even though there has been >prosperity beyond economic growth. The psychological factor at work there was the perception by the population that the US had been attacked. 9/11 certainly was an event which would trip "we been attacked!!!" sensor. That's why a majority of the US population supported the "war leader." >In fact, a leader of China >could very well use a well-known historical gambit: get into a >war if you feel that you are losing political control at home. That's true. The Falklands war was of that kind, an attempt to displace population unhappiness with a failing economy with an external enemy, but then both the leaders and the population also had darn good reason to be looking into a bleak future. > > Of course, China could get into a war if it were attacked. > > Before you say that's impossible, consider Pearl Harbor. > >What? You're kidding! You mean nations actually get into >wars when other nations attack them? Well---I guess I'll >just have to add that to my list of the causes of war :-) Historically it's been used by a third country making both parties think they were attacked. The factors involved are additive if not multiplicative. I make no claim it is easy to untangle the complexities that are partly the result of polity scale up from bands of at most a hundred people to nations a million times larger. However, it is better to have a even a poor model than to have none at all. A poor model can be tested and improved or it may lead to a better model. And in this model, it leads to an understanding of the long range importance of low or even zero population growth unless you want to have wars. Keith From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 14:38:31 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 07:38:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com><0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes Notions such as "maybe we die every instant" or "maybe we die whenever our EEGs go flat", are misconceived, and very harmful for understanding. Let's get serious! You can't get out of paradoxes by making up definitions! > Well, I thought I was making the same point you are making, and I'm sorry that my attempt at rigor has fallen flat. It seems to me > that Heartland is claiming that there is some objective criterion for death which trumps what an ordinary person would understand > by the term.< Sorry---maybe you were making the same point, but maybe not. Let's look at your next sentence: > That would mean that you could have a test and be informed that, even though you don't realise it, you died in the last hour (with > the appropriate adjustment to the pronouns that that would entail). < Why isn't that *theoretically* possible? Why isn't it *possible* that this could have happened? I can imagine being suddenly shown overwhelming evidence including video tapes of Lee's behavior over the last weeks---how in some ways it resembled how I act today and in some ways not, and have to conclude that by some TREMENDOUS agency beyond our present unassisted human ability, the old Lee had indeed been replaced by *me*. (One easy way is to show that Lee actually commited moral crimes of which I am incapable.) > But all that would mean is that the test is not a valid test for what is commonly understood by the word "death"; or > alternatively, that the newly-defined "death" is not the same as the thing that people have always worried about when they were > worrying about dying, and perhaps we need a new word in its place (although it would be more sensible to keep the traditional > meaning and come up with another word for what the test shows). < I agree that in all *practical* situations that have come up, and will even come up in teleportation and uploading, you are entirely correct. We need to nail down the thing that, as you say, people have traditionally been worrying about. That's why Heartland is out to lunch entertaining conjectures that an EEG going flat for a tenth of a second is *necessarily* death, just because his arcane definition says it is. Clearly, we cannot treat life and death as 1 and 0, as well you and I already know. > To push your temperature analogy further, it would be like science discovering the melting point of tungsten, and then declaring that boiling water should no longer be called "hot". Even if everyone agreed that this was an appropriate linguistic change, no scientific discovery will have any bearing on the hot-like sensation you get when you put your hand into boiling water. < Precisely. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 14:43:03 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 07:43:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] War and technological progress References: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502223811.041ddc10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <0bc101c78d92$03560860$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > At 11:25 PM 5/1/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > >>And if the West were to stop exporting filth around the world, stop >>corrupting the Muslim youth with everything from clothing styles to >>bad attitudes, tendentious movies, acceptance of homosexuality, >>defiance of parents, and so on and on, and also were to >>become pure isolationists, stop being on Israel's side, profusely >>apologize for placing troops on the Sacred Soil of Saudi Arabia >>to repel aggression in Kuwait, etc., yes, Al Qaeda might very well >>turn its attention elsewhere. > > EP theory says no. There is nothing that the Western countries can do that > will keep them from being targets of attacks by Al Qaeda. The drive comes > from the local situation. What do you mean, "the local situation"? We need to make sure that you would not have said the same thing in WWII along the lines of "The Americans will never stop attacking the Japanese, no matter how much the Japs surrender. EP says that the drive to wipe 'em out comes from the local situation." Please explain, thanks. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 14:49:11 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 07:49:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook (was Changing other poster's minds) References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <0bcd01c78d92$b9405090$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Spike's great comments cannot pass without remark! >> My hypothesis is that fundamentalist religious movements often have a >> strong emphasis on be doctrinally correct and thus place a high value on >> study of the text of that religion... Fred > > > ...I witness so much meaningless debate because there is disagreement > on a most basic question. This question is not whether or not the belief is > true, but rather what is the nature of the belief. The basic question upon > which the participants must agree is this: does it matter whether or not a > belief is true? > > Most of us here have a fundamentalist's outlook: of course it matters. That is *so* right. I have felt exactly the same thing for decades. The fundamentalists and I are basically on the same side because we believe that there *is* a truth to the matter. But I can't quite say it as well as you do: > But to many non-fundamentalist believers, it really does not matter whether > or not a belief is true. The terms true and false do not really apply to their > religion. For most, religion is a philosophy. It would be like asking is > democrat or republican true? Those terms do not apply, these are > philosophies. They hold some true and some false notions, with much gray > area. A philosophy would not be like a science, in which true or false are > applicable and it matters. Fundamentalists treat religion the same as a > science. Yes, and, as I say, most well spoken. One good sign, however, is that the post-modern crap is fading from view. And even by 1980 I noticed that the "truth is relative" crowd had seemed to retreat a little. > After thinking about this for years, long after realizing that the religion > I knew was not true, I finally realized that it matters to me if my religion > is true. I love true things. Religion should be treated as any scientific > theory. In that sense, altho I am now an atheist, I still have the > fundamentalist's outlook, ja? That's the way it seems to me! Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 14:53:14 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 07:53:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty References: <0b4701c78d0a$bccba300$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <46397213.8000303@mac.com> Message-ID: <0bd301c78d93$6d9097d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Unfortunately, about two-thirds of the way through, I began to notice that >> something very important was missing. Nothing whatsoever was being said >> about the Rule of Law. Yes, private property was emphasized, and rightly >> so. But the other equally important foundation of progress and civilization >> was not mentioned EVEN ONCE in the ten minute show. >> >> Nothing at all was said or implied about just how obedience to democratically >> enacted laws is to be achieved! > > Rational law is not the same as "democratically enacted law". But at any moment in time, it is our best approximation! What would be better? You and your friends getting together and writing out new laws for us all? > The latter can be and often are extremely deleterious and anti-liberty. > Take the democratically enacted laws declaring war on some drugs as a > case in point. In ten minutes it probably would not be possible to > say what liberty consistent law would be like in much detail much less > how such laws are to be enforced. You cannot meaningfully conflate the > vast majority of "law breakers" as the law is today with murderers and > thieves. I agree. > Anti-anarchist arguments would need a lot cleaner and more careful > development than the swipe presented here. There is nothing in not > initiating force that say a gang initiating force should not be > forcefully stopped. That their are specialist for counteracting the > initiation of force changes things not at all. Agreed. thanks, Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 14:59:01 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 07:59:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Changing Other Poster's Minds References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46397638.5010008@mac.com> Message-ID: <0be301c78d94$22284850$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > spike wrote: > >> After thinking about this for years, long after realizing that the religion >> I knew was not true, I finally realized that it matters to me if my religion >> is true. I love true things. Religion should be treated as any scientific >> theory. In that sense, altho I am now an atheist, I still have the >> fundamentalist's outlook, ja? > > hahaha. Not in the least. I would need to assume that the people that > look at religion as really "philosophy" and that it would seem also > assume that philosophy is not really philosophy and doesn't really > require a love of truth and search for it but is more some rather murky > "philosophy of life" are in fact the correct and most mature and "right" > ones. But this is again as assumption of right vs. wrong and even true > view versus false so this is no escape from your assumed position that > to care about truth is to be a fundamentalist. I wish that > fundamentalists cared about the truth. In a sense, I agree with you. But the more *fundamental* (pardon the pun) issue here is about the nature of truth. Spike is targeting relativists, and in my book they need to be overcome at a different level "before" we take on those who agree with us that there is just one truth. > I do not believe that the majority of them do at all. They care only to > assert that they have the only Truth while not needing to understand > or inquire at all. This is not at all the same thing. But I am very sure > you know that. Yes, I am sure that Spike does too. But it's just a difference in our methodology towards truth. They consult sacred works; we criticize and conjecture and refutation. 'Tis true, our more fundamentalist battle seems won, but I am dismayed from time to time to see relativism pop up here and on SL4. "Oh yes I believe in God", says what you and I know to be an atheist, etc. See, on that page, the fundamentalists and we are on the same page. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 15:03:14 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 08:03:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook References: <1177914296.3449.262.camel@localhost.localdomain><200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <0bfc01c78d94$d65e50d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > Liberal theologians sometimes treat religion as if it is obviously just fantasy: Ah, thank you. That is a great term for what I was trying to describe. It's the liberal theologians to whom I feel less affinity than the fundmentalists. > we know that there are no virgin births, people don't rise from the dead, etc. > (at least not 2000 years ago), but they are inspiring stories nonetheless, > like the mythology of any culture. > Would you say that these people are more or less honest than the > fundamentalists, who after all have to convince themselves of > something a rational person would not believe and call it "faith"? Question right on target! I would say that these people are *less* honest by far than the fundamentalists. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 15:06:15 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 08:06:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <20070502104206.GD17691@leitl.org> <20070503080801.GH17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: <0bfd01c78d94$d6761e90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen writes > Yes, I agree that observer-moments do not make much sense. The length > of the interval is not sharply defined either, there are subconscious > processes which are really quick, and higher-level processes (the sum > of underwater activity) which can take their sweet time. > > > First we should decide what death means and that will inform us when death occurs, > > Death has no meaning at all, especially if you haven't agreed where to > draw that arbitrary, rapidly receding line in the sand. Yet below you say "Why don't you stick to information-theoretic death. It's a classic." So which is it? Lee > Critical care medicine routinely keeps pushing the limits back, > and by golly, we have some good chances to see that boundary > pushed back indefinitely at least for organ transplant > purposes. And the brain is just an organ. > >> not the other way around. (Lee, I completely disagree with you on this point too.) >> Definition of death should >> follow from a definition of life. Life is a physical (dynamic) process (its >> activity, to be precise), not a (static) pattern. Absence of that activity is death >> even though I realize this is not immediately obvious. > > Why don't you stick to information-theoretic death. It's a classic. > > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 15:16:44 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 08:16:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> John Clark wrote > Ask him. I'm the one who first brought up that point but I never got a > coherent response from him over it. > >> Who, besides you, gives a ---- about your subjective experience? > > Nobody, but you care about your subjective experience and want it to > continue, that's why you jump out of the way when a car is coming toward > you. And I believe the missing word is "fuck". I am starting to be more and more affected by what I am reading lately about history and sociology (e.g. Fukuyama's "Trust", essays on "social capital"), and even what John C. Wright had to say and the way he said it. Why are we allowing the level of our discourse to continue to degenerate? All for the sake of our not-so-new idol "plain talk", that came in in the 1950's? Can it really be true that there are no deleterious consequences? Isn't the logical end to such a progression "rap"? Do we want to go down to the level of the Math Forum that replaced the old usenet group? Half the posts were overrun with expletives *even* in their subject lines! I heard yesterday that Ronald Reagan never swore. I wonder if it's true. If it is, then he was the *only* president that I know of of whom it's true, and that includes George Washington, about which hardly anything negative can be said. Just raising the issue---asking questions at this point---that's all. Lee From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 3 15:20:30 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:20:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0bfd01c78d94$d6761e90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070503080801.GH17691@leitl.org> <0bfd01c78d94$d6761e90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070503152030.GR17691@leitl.org> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:06:15AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Yet below you say "Why don't you stick to information-theoretic death. > It's a classic." So which is it? Current medicine and law does not (yet) subscribe to the information theoretic death, as many people here do. As to the classical medicine, what is pushing the envelope is http://ccforum.com/content/9/6/538/abstract http://eugen.leitl.org/cc3894.pdf -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 15:22:35 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 08:22:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><09c201c78b8b$342b33b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0ac701c78c77$dfd7d7d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0c0501c78d96$f2d562b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Heartland writes >> 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. > > The rules of this calculus are all arbitrary, subjective (thus unverifiable) and > messy. Of course. But they're the best I have when between Scylla and Charybdis. On the one hand, I'm confident I'm the same person I was last month, and on the other, I am not the same person I was at age 2. So, while obviously a gradual process, I *clearly* was intermediate somewhere when I was 17. > I really don't know why you keep asserting there is such a thing as > "degree of death," and implying this assumption is unassailable. My usual > response to such statements is, "Can you be little pregnant too?" No, you cannot be a little bit pregnant. But do you really believe that there was a *point* in time, an exact second, in which you became alive? How could that possibly be?????????? Why do you refuse to accept that it's on a continuum? It's driving you to say silly things like > Of course there are. Life and death *is* like 1 and 0. There's no such thing as > "degree of life" either. A small flame or an inferno is still fire. Until we get past this point, there is no point in further discussions with you about this topic. Sorry---I have enjoyed it, and thanks. Lee From velvethum at hotmail.com Thu May 3 15:38:28 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 11:38:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] How to be copied into the future? References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer><0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: Lee: >> Would not Heartland instantly agree that each second he loses and gains >> billions of atoms? John K Clark: > Ask him. I'm the one who first brought up that point but I never got a > coherent response from him over it. If Lee had asked me this question 10 years ago, 2 years ago or a week ago the answer would have still been the same -- "Yes, I would." Lee: >> BUT ISN'T IT PATENTLY WRONG TO KEEP > ON SAYING THAT FOR HIM IT'S ALL ABOUT ATOMS?? John K Clark: > No it is not. For well over a year we exchanged post after post with him > talking about space time trajectories of atoms and Bose Einstein > Condensations trying to convene me that atoms are unique and they somehow > confer that property to human beings. Nope. I never attempted to "convene" anyone in my life, I swear. :) And if I had attempted it, I would have never dared to try to convince the assembled crowd of something as ridiculous as *that*. Besides, I would have to be crazy to spend "well over a year" on such a sure-to-be-fruitless pursuit. For the last time (I have a feeling I'm going to regret this), it's the trajectories that are unique, not the atoms (possibly being replaced each hour) traveling along these trajectories. If you're going to insist on calling me "priest," at least call me a Priest of Verifiably Unique Trajectories. At least get *that* right. BTW, Leibniz is the equivalent of Christ in our church. Our equivalent of the Bible? Leibniz's law. :-) John K Clark: > On May 9 2006 I listed 11 very specific objections I had to his ideas, he > never responded. > > 1) Mr. Heartland says .... What followed was a nauseous mix of spin manufactured at the "Zombie Strawman" factory. Please ignore. From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 3 15:55:05 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 16:55:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Why are we allowing the level of our discourse to continue to degenerate? > All for the sake of our not-so-new idol "plain talk", that came in in the > 1950's? Can it really be true that there are no deleterious consequences? > Isn't the logical end to such a progression "rap"? I agree that it is not good if the level of discourse degenerates. I don't agree, however, that the occasional use of profanity where it is appropriate constitutes degeneration. Constant, gratuitous use of profanity would be another matter - as would constant, gratuitous use of any emotionally-charged words. Swear words, like most words, have both appropriate and inappropriate uses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 3 16:00:21 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 18:00:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] How to be copied into the future? In-Reply-To: References: <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <20070503160021.GV17691@leitl.org> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 11:38:28AM -0400, Heartland wrote: > What followed was a nauseous mix of spin manufactured at the "Zombie Strawman" > factory. Please ignore. Notice that I'm only letting this thread continue because there are at least two people apart from you who are sufficiently interested. I'm quite sure many more are just bored out of their wits, and hit delete. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From randall at randallsquared.com Thu May 3 16:04:36 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:04:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <009D94D0-7812-402D-AF5B-0B149E7970EA@randallsquared.com> On May 3, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Lee Corbin wrote: > John Clark wrote >> Ask him. I'm the one who first brought up that point but I never >> got a >> coherent response from him over it. >> >>> Who, besides you, gives a ---- about your subjective experience? >> >> Nobody, but you care about your subjective experience and want it to >> continue, that's why you jump out of the way when a car is coming >> toward >> you. And I believe the missing word is "fuck". > > I am starting to be more and more affected by what I am reading > lately about history and sociology (e.g. Fukuyama's "Trust", essays > on "social capital"), and even what John C. Wright had to say and > the way he said it. > > Why are we allowing the level of our discourse to continue to > degenerate? > All for the sake of our not-so-new idol "plain talk", that came in > in the > 1950's? Can it really be true that there are no deleterious > consequences? How one writes is, in part, a measure of the level of respect one has for readers. It's often quite clear from one's writing how one views the reader, but I think it used to be more common for familiarity to be interpreted as contempt. > Isn't the logical end to such a progression "rap"? Well, as entertainment, rap can be great. :) It's just not usually best for persuasion. -- Randall Randall "Is it asking too much to be given time [...] I'll watch the stars go out." -- Dubstar, Stars From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu May 3 16:32:26 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:32:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.co m> References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> At 04:55 PM 5/3/2007 +0100, Russell wrote: >On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote: >Why are we allowing the level of our discourse to continue to degenerate? > >I agree that it is not good if the level of discourse degenerates. I >don't agree, however, that the occasional use of profanity where it >is appropriate constitutes degeneration. The slightly farcical aspect here is that Lee was the one who introduced the foul epithet "----". I was shocked, shocked I say. Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Thu May 3 16:34:56 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:34:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> References: <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > I agree that it is not good if the level of discourse degenerates. I don't > agree, however, that the occasional use of profanity where it is appropriate > constitutes degeneration. Constant, gratuitous use of profanity would be > another matter - as would constant, gratuitous use of any > emotionally-charged words. Swear words, like most words, have both > appropriate and inappropriate uses. > Try telling that to the teenagers! I can only speak for the UK, but the constant use of swearing in their normal conversation is very prevalent. You only need to walk around the mall, or listen on public transport, whenever a group get together. They don't think of it as swearing, it is just normal for them. When they get angry, and want to swear, they run into problems communicating their displeasure because they haven't got any 'forbidden' words left to use. So violence is the easy way of expressing anger. Look at the stuff they post in chat rooms, on MySpace, or text messages. It is almost constant, never-ending profanity and explicit sexual references. (All with spelling mistakes as they use 'text' language and a sort of pidgin English). They do tend to tone it down when talking to adults. So maybe there is hope for them growing out of it. BillK From ben at goertzel.org Thu May 3 16:37:37 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:37:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> References: <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705030937v47f29ba9u3da6ccc5848ced69@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > At 04:55 PM 5/3/2007 +0100, Russell wrote: > >On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> > wrote: > >Why are we allowing the level of our discourse to continue to degenerate? > > > >I agree that it is not good if the level of discourse degenerates. I > >don't agree, however, that the occasional use of profanity where it > >is appropriate constitutes degeneration. > > The slightly farcical aspect here is that Lee was the one who > introduced the foul epithet "----". I was shocked, shocked I say. > > Damien Broderick Exactly. What the FUCK is your problem, people? Are you all a bunch of ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster fuckwads or what?? Your mothers all wear combat boots!! I say you betta get off your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE BLOODY INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in charge I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Thu May 3 16:39:16 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:39:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705030937v47f29ba9u3da6ccc5848ced69@mail.gmail.com> References: <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0705030937v47f29ba9u3da6ccc5848ced69@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705030939n695d4ecbo2409b6244f05d0f3@mail.gmail.com> > > > > Exactly. What the FUCK is your problem, people? Are you all a bunch of > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster fuckwads > or what?? Your mothers all wear combat boots!! I say you betta get off > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE BLOODY > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in charge > I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA Oh, and by the way ... in case there are any goddamn bloody retards on here ... I wasn't serious ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 3 16:45:38 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:45:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook (was Changing other poster's minds) In-Reply-To: <0bcd01c78d92$b9405090$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <0bcd01c78d92$b9405090$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705030945u24ca8c67h4f44b205c66b3a6e@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Yes, and, as I say, most well spoken. One good sign, however, is that the > post-modern crap is fading from view. And even by 1980 I noticed that > the "truth is relative" crowd had seemed to retreat a little. > I'm certainly not one of the "truth is relative" crowd, but I find myself in more sympathy with the liberal theologians than with the fundamentalists of either side. First, it is not at all clear to me that there is a fact of the matter regarding the existence of God. When the gods are said to live atop Mount Olympus, there's data to be had: climb the mountain and see whether you encounter gods or not. But the monotheistic God is typically placed outside our universe. How do you propose to step outside the universe to see whether you encounter God? Okay, there is one known way to do that. But the word "afterlife" is arguably a dodgy one if you think about the first part: "after". That refers to time. But if you're talking about what happens outside our universe, you can't be talking about the physicist's time, the imaginary dimension of relativity, that which is measured by clocks. It's not that science says there is no afterlife: it's that it cannot make statements about whether or not there is, because there's no data and the very term is not a scientific one. If "after" can't refer to objective time, presumably it refers to subjective time. So then we would say there is an afterlife if we have continued subjective experiences after we die. Does science have anything to say about that? Well yes it does, at least to those of us who subscribe to the pattern theory of identity. Science at least suggests the existence of at least some levels of the Tegmark multiverse; and that means all possible continuations of your subjective experience do indeed occur. So yes, in a sense there is an afterlife. What does that mean in practical terms, for what we will actually experience? Nobody knows - nobody from whom we have verified testimony, at least. And that's before you even get into things like the Simulation Argument. I'm not saying SA is true, I'm not saying it's false - I don't know either way. I am saying, let he who thinks he can disprove the existence of God have that debate with the SA folk and let me know who wins. So much for the material question. But an important point being missed here is that there are different kinds of truth. If the facts are all we're interested in, shouldn't we throw out all our copies of Hamlet, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars? There aren't really any such things as ghosts or elves or the Force, after all, so why waste time on stories about them? Because those stories contain profound moral truths, wisdom about the human condition and how we should live; and this is a sort of knowledge that we cannot live without, any more than we can live without knowing how to grow wheat or make penicillin. And that is the purpose of religion. Sure, Noah's flood didn't literally occur any more than the War of the Ring did, but that doesn't make the Bible valueless. Do you not think he who sets out to destroy something that performs a vital function, should provide a viable, proven replacement _before_ he begins the task of destruction? Where, then, is your replacement for the religion you would destroy? Perhaps you - most of you reading this list - find you personally, as individuals, don't need to believe in God. But for most people it's the only thing that's ever been enough. All attempts thus far at creating a non-religious moral framework have been utter failures. Come up with something that works first, or desist from attempting to destroy that which already works, if you want to end up going anywhere except into the fossil record. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moses2k at gmail.com Thu May 3 17:03:07 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:03:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705030939n695d4ecbo2409b6244f05d0f3@mail.gmail.com> References: <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0705030937v47f29ba9u3da6ccc5848ced69@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0705030939n695d4ecbo2409b6244f05d0f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3aff9e290705031003p2fe530f0qf8c33a909a189aa2@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > > > Exactly. What the FUCK is your problem, people? Are you all a bunch of > > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster fuckwads > > or what?? Your mothers all wear combat boots!! I say you betta get off > > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE BLOODY > > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in charge > > I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA > I hope Novamente Baby doesn't hear you speaking like that. :) -Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asa at nada.kth.se Thu May 3 16:57:45 2007 From: asa at nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 18:57:45 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <54380.86.155.201.236.1178211465.squirrel@webmail.csc.kth.se> Damien Broderick wrote: > The slightly farcical aspect here is that Lee was the one who > introduced the foul epithet "----". I was shocked, shocked I say. What is the problem of good old (excuse my french) &/#(?, $?%* or ?&??+? When I was a kid I made up my own foul words, which allowed me to swear in polite company. Dialogs is all about communication, and just as one should not waste ink or time on useless words there is seldom a need for strengthening curse-words. "Fuck" and "quite" can often be removed from a text with no loss of meaning. -- Anders Sandberg, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From jonkc at att.net Thu May 3 17:41:43 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 13:41:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] How to be copied into the future? References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com><08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer><0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <01aa01c78daa$56452fc0$a1044e0c@MyComputer> Heartland, High Priest of the Unique Atom and Sacred Original Cult Wrote: > it's the trajectories that are unique, not the atoms (possibly being > replaced each hour) traveling along these trajectories. In the first place space time trajectories are not unique; their shape depends on the reference frame observing them. But forget that, the trajectories must be trajectories of SOMETHING, it can only be of atoms and if atoms are not unique as you say above then how in the world can their trajectories be unique? And if they are so important why is it so easy to erase them from the universe just by cooling the atoms? And just what atomic trajectories are important and what ones are not, when I take a piss are those atoms still important, do I still have to calculate all those piss trajectory atoms to figure out if I'm still me? And what exactly is the connection between those atomic space-time trajectories and subjectivity? You say it is of supreme importance in providing us our sense of who we are, but don't say why, nor to you say how you figured this out, you don't even give us a hint as to why one should have the slightest thing to do with the other. John K Clark From hkhenson at rogers.com Thu May 3 17:19:57 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 13:19:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] War and technological progress In-Reply-To: <4639742F.6040306@mac.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070502223811.041ddc10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502223811.041ddc10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070503130558.041df300@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 10:33 PM 5/2/2007 -0700, samantha wrote: >Keith Henson wrote: snip > > EP theory says no. There is nothing that the Western countries can do > that > > will keep them from being targets of attacks by Al Qaeda. The drive comes > > from the local situation. > >I would rather know what we can do to keep our government or some within >it from stealing all our freedoms after staging things like 911 to >stampede the people. EP is a major tool which lets us under stand human nature and why things like wars occur. But I have found it remarkable difficult to turn into concrete programs. For example, had we understood the implications 50 years ago would it have made any difference in the population growth in the places now on the brink of war? >Focus on Al Qaeda is studiously missing the point >and letting the evil wizard[s] behind the curtain continue. This goes beyond first level EEA, but I think the case could be made that civilizations under little economic or social stress are more likely to be places of relative freedom. The frontier closed within in the life of my parents. (I put in an example here, but decided in this environment self censorship was probably the best idea.) Which bring us around to space elevators and solar power satellites as a way to make the future brighter and provide for human expansion (if humans don't just leave physical reality entirely). Keith From kevin at kevinfreels.com Thu May 3 18:04:13 2007 From: kevin at kevinfreels.com (kevin at kevinfreels.com) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:04:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook (was Changing other poster's minds) Message-ID: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 3 19:27:20 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:27:20 +0200 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <20070503192720.GH17691@leitl.org> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 07:38:31AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > Notions such as "maybe we die every instant" or "maybe we die > whenever our EEGs go flat", are misconceived, and very harmful But this is precisely what Slawomir is saying. Flat EEG lacunes are literally death, to him. > for understanding. Let's get serious! You can't get out of paradoxes > by making up definitions! People have been known to produce paradoxes by sticking to the wrong kinds of definitions. > > > That would mean that you could have a test and be informed that, even though you don't realise it, you died in the last hour (with > > the appropriate adjustment to the pronouns that that would entail). > < > > Why isn't that *theoretically* possible? Why isn't it *possible* > that this could have happened? I can imagine being suddenly It is possible, but it is relatively demanding technically, and it would be a pointless prank practically. > shown overwhelming evidence including video tapes of Lee's > behavior over the last weeks---how in some ways it resembled > how I act today and in some ways not, and have to conclude > that by some TREMENDOUS agency beyond our present > unassisted human ability, the old Lee had indeed been replaced You can say that again. > by *me*. (One easy way is to show that Lee actually commited Which means you're a synthetic, brand-new person. Perhaps only loosely modelled upon the orignal Lee, if at all. Making up new people from scratch is not very easy. > moral crimes of which I am incapable.) Endless fun ensues when you're to prove that to the judge. > I agree that in all *practical* situations that have come up, and > will even come up in teleportation and uploading, you are entirely > correct. We need to nail down the thing that, as you say, people > have traditionally been worrying about. That's why Heartland > is out to lunch entertaining conjectures that an EEG going flat > for a tenth of a second is *necessarily* death, just because his > arcane definition says it is. Clearly, we cannot treat life and death I'm glad we're on the same page here. > as 1 and 0, as well you and I already know. For some reason, many still subscribe to the boolean notion of identity. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From pj at pj-manney.com Thu May 3 19:13:15 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 15:13:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs Message-ID: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > Exactly.??What the FUCK is your problem, people???Are you all a bunch of > > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster fuckwads?? > > or what????Your mothers all wear combat boots!!??I say you betta get off > > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE BLOODY > > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in charge?? > > I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA > Chris wrote: >I hope Novamente Baby doesn't hear you speaking like that. :) Or the Novamente Baby will teach the other AI babies on the AI playground and we'll all be knee-deep in swearing AIs. But I'm from New York. I'll just swear back at them. [If the AIs are anything like my kids, they'll delight in swearing in all the languages their compatriots teach them, too. Mine have got Korean, Japanese and German profanities so far... How proud am I...? :-/ ] [Thanks, Ben, for contributing to my daily laugh.] PJ From ben at goertzel.org Thu May 3 21:39:16 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:39:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705031439g38e5d27k7c9a2352e6f90aaa@mail.gmail.com> Yes, the plan is that Novababy will have its language faculties tuned on a text corpus consisting of transcripts from re-runs from South Park, Family Guy and American Dad .. This will ensure that it has the proper empathy for human psychology, guaranteeing appropriately Friendly AI ... On 5/3/07, pjmanney wrote: > > On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > Exactly.What the FUCK is your problem, people?Are you all a bunch of > > > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster > fuckwads > > > or what??Your mothers all wear combat boots!!I say you betta get off > > > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE > BLOODY > > > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in > charge > > > I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA > > > > Chris wrote: > >I hope Novamente Baby doesn't hear you speaking like that. :) > > Or the Novamente Baby will teach the other AI babies on the AI playground > and we'll all be knee-deep in swearing AIs. > > But I'm from New York. I'll just swear back at them. > > [If the AIs are anything like my kids, they'll delight in swearing in all > the languages their compatriots teach them, too. Mine have got Korean, > Japanese and German profanities so far... How proud am I...? :-/ ] > > [Thanks, Ben, for contributing to my daily laugh.] > > PJ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Thu May 3 22:09:09 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 00:09:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty Message-ID: Lee Corbin: >I'm forced to conclude that once again we see the sad spectacle of an >anarchist philosophy being passed off as an Evolutionarily Stable >Strategy, or a real-world possibility. Only in dream land. The video >suggested the following solution to the problem of aggression from >others: everyone should just never initiate the use of force. Isn't >that simple? Isn't that nice? You were expecting PPL in a one minute slot? Aren't you expecting a lot in 10 minutes? The concepts presented for 'never initiating force' and self-ownership and voluntarist actions are already the foundation for PPL and a large step in the direction of the kind of contracts necessary for customary law (a la Bruce Benson). Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 22:36:53 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:36:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook References: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell and Kevin stand up for aspects of religion: Kevin says > Very good points [Russell] ...All of them. One thing I would like to add is > that most mainstream religions don't allow you to look at the boble as you have. > You see the bible as I do - a great source of wisdom and examples... of human > morality. But what we are up against is the Christian dogma that states that if > you do not believe that noah fit 2 of every species into this "ark", or if you do > not believe that Jesus literally walked on water as a miracle (not on rocks), > you are damned to hell... Now if one contemporary politician wrote a lot of "lies" about another, would you defend these if his *moral* point was well taken? Isn't there a basic lack of respect for the truth itself in your analysis here? It's *not* just that certain people want to damn others, it's that they says lots and lots of things that you and I just know are not true. > This is the battle that has to be won. Not necessarily the removal > of the religion itself, but the changing of the dogma surrounding it. But you focused on the dogmatic parts that featured intolerance. Good untruths are okay? Russell had said > On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Yes, and, as I say, most well spoken. One good sign, however, is that the > > post-modern crap is fading from view. And even by 1980 I noticed that > > the "truth is relative" crowd had seemed to retreat a little. > > > I'm certainly not one of the "truth is relative" crowd, but I find myself in > more sympathy with the liberal theologians than with the fundamentalists > of either side. Just out of curiosity, have you read Bartley's "The Retreat to Commitment?" > First, it is not at all clear to me that there is a fact of the matter regarding > the existence of God. How about Santa Claus? Do you really think that there is a fact of the matter regarding an individual who lives at the north pole and arranges for gifts to somewhat magically be delivered on Christmas day to deserving children around the world? Do you think that there is a fact of the matter as to whether or not the Angel Moroni delivered eight golden tablets for the inspection of Joseph Smith? Is there a fact of the matter whether water can be turned into wine any time around the first century AD? > If the facts are all we're interested in, shouldn't we throw out all our > copies of Hamlet, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars? There aren't > really any such things as ghosts or elves or the Force, after all, so > why waste time on stories about them? It is perfectly clear, even to any child, that these are *stories* of make-believe. Thus there is a huge difference between them and religious doctrines that for no-foolin' make all sorts of preposterous claims. Either we're going to stick together and denouce falsehoods or we're not. > Because those stories contain profound moral truths, wisdom > about the human condition and how we should live; and this is > a sort of knowledge that we cannot live without, Oh, no argument there. No, the question is about whether you want to denounce falsehood or not. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 22:44:44 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:44:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <20070503192720.GH17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: <0c4901c78dd4$e938deb0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eugen writes > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 07:38:31AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote: > >> Notions such as "maybe we die every instant" or "maybe we die >> whenever our EEGs go flat", are misconceived, and very harmful > > But this is precisely what Slawomir is saying. Flat EEG lacunes > are literally death, to him. I'm still hoping that he'll reply and pin down exactly when the Slawomir life function went from 0 to 1 around the time---I guess---that he was conceived. I read recently somewhere that conception is a *process* that actually requires hours. Unfortunately, I didn't record where because I did not anticipate that I'd be arguing with anyone who believes in a quantum soul or its equivalent. To be more precise, I didn't think that I'd be arguing with anyone who believes that living/dead is like 1/0. I appreciate and agree with the remainder of your remarks. Lee > People have been known to produce paradoxes by sticking to the > wrong kinds of definitions. > >> > That would mean that you could have a test and be informed that, even though you don't realise it, you died in the last hour >> > (with >> > the appropriate adjustment to the pronouns that that would entail). >> >> Why isn't that *theoretically* possible? Why isn't it *possible* >> that this could have happened? I can imagine being suddenly > > It is possible, but it is relatively demanding technically, and > it would be a pointless prank practically. >> ... > ... >> I agree that in all *practical* situations that have come up, and >> will even come up in teleportation and uploading, you are entirely >> correct. We need to nail down the thing that, as you say, people >> have traditionally been worrying about. That's why Heartland >> is out to lunch entertaining conjectures that an EEG going flat >> for a tenth of a second is *necessarily* death, just because his >> arcane definition says it is. Clearly, we cannot treat life and death > > I'm glad we're on the same page here. > >> as 1 and 0, as well you and I already know. > > For some reason, many still subscribe to the boolean notion of identity. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Thu May 3 22:48:11 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:48:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs References: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <0c5201c78dd5$9f174000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> pjmanney writes > On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > >> > Exactly. What the FUCK is your problem, people? Are you all a bunch of >> > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster fuckwads >> > or what?? Your mothers all wear combat boots!! I say you betta get off >> > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE BLOODY >> > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in charge >> > I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA > ... > [Thanks, Ben, for contributing to my daily laugh.] Oh yes, that is quite hilarious, isn't it? I hope Ben puts it prominently on his website. Surely nothing wrong with that, right? Lee From russell.wallace at gmail.com Thu May 3 22:56:27 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:56:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook In-Reply-To: <0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705031556n1fb28cbeu30963165d0cf8d68@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > How about Santa Claus? Do you really think that there is a fact of the > matter regarding an individual who lives at the north pole and arranges > for gifts to somewhat magically be delivered on Christmas day to > deserving children around the world? There are various sources of data that entitle me to claim there is a fact of the matter in this case, such as the observed absence of Santa's workshop at the geographical north pole. This would be equivalent to the example I gave about the absence of gods on top of Mount Olympus. If a variant of the Santa Claus story placed him in a Platonic realm outside our universe and didn't insist he _literally_ climbs down chimneys on Christmas Eve, it would stop being so clear to me that there was a fact of the matter, and I would start evaluating the story on other criteria. Which reminds me of a Terry Pratchett quote... *rummage* here we are: Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape. Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies. Susan: So we can believe the big ones? Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing. Susan: They're not the same at all. Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged. Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point? Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become? And my question stands: do you not agree that he who sets out to destroy something vital, should first have a viable replacement ready? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Thu May 3 23:00:45 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 19:00:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <0c5201c78dd5$9f174000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <0c5201c78dd5$9f174000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705031600r6d470179r133895566606902@mail.gmail.com> Lee, as Jeff Allbright is fond of pointing out ... it's all about context ;-) ben On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > pjmanney writes > > > > On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > >> > Exactly. What the FUCK is your problem, people? Are you all a bunch > of > >> > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster > fuckwads > >> > or what?? Your mothers all wear combat boots!! I say you betta get > off > >> > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE > BLOODY > >> > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in > charge > >> > I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA > > ... > > [Thanks, Ben, for contributing to my daily laugh.] > > Oh yes, that is quite hilarious, isn't it? I hope Ben puts it prominently > on his website. > Surely nothing wrong with that, right? > > Lee > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bret at bonfireproductions.com Thu May 3 23:05:56 2007 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (Bret Kulakovich) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 19:05:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible? In-Reply-To: <200705021912.l42JC7jN029130@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200705021912.l42JC7jN029130@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <9637E08C-5A0D-4793-B7DC-62209D8C8B54@bonfireproductions.com> Hahaha - surely. However spike - we have no control of who will make it back first - and I think in the heat of the argument it was meant with more sincerity! ~]3 On May 2, 2007, at 3:01 PM, spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bret Kulakovich > Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or > sensible? > > > As if the insult that follows this remark is not enough, this single > statement alone: > > Brett Paasch wrote: I would oppose your reanimation. > > Is utterly contemptible. I wrote Eugen offlist to say so...~ Bret > > > Hi Bret with one t, I received several notes offlist to this effect > too. > Saying one would oppose your reanimation is the technogeeks way of > saying go > to hell. > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jef at jefallbright.net Thu May 3 23:50:23 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 16:50:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705031600r6d470179r133895566606902@mail.gmail.com> References: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <0c5201c78dd5$9f174000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <3cf171fe0705031600r6d470179r133895566606902@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > Lee, as Jeff Allbright is fond of pointing out ... it's all about context > ;-) I was considering writing a high-minded essay in five paragraphs about the importance of respect when I saw Ben's post and realized the fucker had made my point for me and had done it in one. - Jef From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Fri May 4 00:23:36 2007 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 17:23:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Weird Speech for Tokyo Governor Candidate Message-ID: <51ce64f10705031723v706fd008hf8f0f6a0c971809a@mail.gmail.com> I saw this linked from Bryan Caplan and Arnold Kling's Econlog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr9_uLlH3yk You'll probably get a few lulz out of it. -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 4 00:44:14 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:44:14 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook (was Changing other poster's minds) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705030945u24ca8c67h4f44b205c66b3a6e@mail.gmail.com> References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <0bcd01c78d92$b9405090$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030945u24ca8c67h4f44b205c66b3a6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 04/05/07, Russell Wallace wrote: First, it is not at all clear to me that there is a fact of the matter > regarding the existence of God. When the gods are said to live atop Mount > Olympus, there's data to be had: climb the mountain and see whether you > encounter gods or not. But the monotheistic God is typically placed outside > our universe. How do you propose to step outside the universe to see whether > you encounter God? Inaccessibility is not license to posit the existence of anything that takes your fancy. What if I say that Santa Claus exists, but he lives just beyond the edge of the visible universe. Would you say that there is no "truth of the matter" regarding the existence of this Santa Claus? Well yes it does, at least to those of us who subscribe to the pattern > theory of identity. Science at least suggests the existence of at least some > levels of the Tegmark multiverse; and that means all possible continuations > of your subjective experience do indeed occur. So yes, in a sense there is > an afterlife. What does that mean in practical terms, for what we will > actually experience? Nobody knows - nobody from whom we have verified > testimony, at least. > > And that's before you even get into things like the Simulation Argument. > I'm not saying SA is true, I'm not saying it's false - I don't know either > way. I am saying, let he who thinks he can disprove the existence of God > have that debate with the SA folk and let me know who wins. The SA is to religion as speculation about extraterrestrial life is to speculation about the existence of Klingons and Romulans. So much for the material question. But an important point being missed here > is that there are different kinds of truth. > > If the facts are all we're interested in, shouldn't we throw out all our > copies of Hamlet, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars? There aren't really any > such things as ghosts or elves or the Force, after all, so why waste time on > stories about them? > > Because those stories contain profound moral truths, wisdom about the > human condition and how we should live; and this is a sort of knowledge that > we cannot live without, any more than we can live without knowing how to > grow wheat or make penicillin. > > And that is the purpose of religion. Sure, Noah's flood didn't literally > occur any more than the War of the Ring did, but that doesn't make the Bible > valueless. I am happy to include the Bible as a great work of literature, but I don't see the slightest reason why it should be taken any more seriously as a description of reality than, say, the Iliad and the Odyssey. If we had Homeric fundamentalists alive today we could have the same discussions with them as we do with Christian fundamentalists. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri May 4 01:16:12 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 02:16:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook (was Changing other poster's minds) In-Reply-To: References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <0bcd01c78d92$b9405090$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030945u24ca8c67h4f44b205c66b3a6e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705031816l15c40272v7f971bfea5edfb86@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Inaccessibility is not license to posit the existence of anything that > takes your fancy. What if I say that Santa Claus exists, but he lives just > beyond the edge of the visible universe. Would you say that there is no > "truth of the matter" regarding the existence of this Santa Claus? > Inaccessibility by itself isn't, but infinity in some cases is. Replace "just beyond" with "somewhere beyond" and, given that our best theories suggest the universe is infinite or at least exponentially larger than our Hubble volume, I would say there is no basis for claiming his nonexistence in that sense. I am happy to include the Bible as a great work of literature, but I don't > see the slightest reason why it should be taken any more seriously as a > description of reality than, say, the Iliad and the Odyssey. If we had > Homeric fundamentalists alive today we could have the same discussions with > them as we do with Christian fundamentalists. > I'm not defending fundamentalism - on any side. I think "the Bible proves the Earth was created in 4004 BC" is as false, counterproductive and irrational as "science proves there is no God". The way I got into this conversation was when I saw people praising fundamentalists as more rational than moderates! It's the moderate religious view that has faith in God (which can be neither proven nor disproven) and sees the Bible as a source of moral truth without insisting that every word in it be taken literally, that I'm defending. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri May 4 01:24:56 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:24:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705031556n1fb28cbeu30963165d0cf8d68@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705031556n1fb28cbeu30963165d0cf8d68@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240705031824m15ed1d9bk267779ce0dc80f7a@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > And my question stands: do you not agree that he who sets out to destroy > something vital, should first have a viable replacement ready? That would definately be the polite thing to do. Some would argue that the destruction of that vital thing will provide the impetus for discovery of the replacement. I would not argue that point, but I have heard of it. (A coworker has explained that we should consume fossil fuels more ravenously, so when none/few are left we will have no choice but to find a viable alternative. Until that point there is insufficient motivation to be fully innovative) From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 4 01:38:26 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 21:38:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] War and technological progress In-Reply-To: <0bc101c78d92$03560860$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <463792C0.8010402@thomasoliver.net> <0acb01c78c78$93e2d8b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502223811.041ddc10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070503213342.041d7920@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 07:43 AM 5/3/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Keith writes > > > At 11:25 PM 5/1/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > > > >>And if the West were to stop exporting filth around the world, stop > >>corrupting the Muslim youth with everything from clothing styles to > >>bad attitudes, tendentious movies, acceptance of homosexuality, > >>defiance of parents, and so on and on, and also were to > >>become pure isolationists, stop being on Israel's side, profusely > >>apologize for placing troops on the Sacred Soil of Saudi Arabia > >>to repel aggression in Kuwait, etc., yes, Al Qaeda might very well > >>turn its attention elsewhere. > > > > EP theory says no. There is nothing that the Western countries can do > that > > will keep them from being targets of attacks by Al Qaeda. The drive comes > > from the local situation. > >What do you mean, "the local situation"? We need to make sure that >you would not have said the same thing in WWII along the lines of >"The Americans will never stop attacking the Japanese, no matter >how much the Japs surrender. EP says that the drive to wipe 'em >out comes from the local situation." > >Please explain, thanks. The problem which leads to western countries being targets is one we *can't* fix. Mapped to the EEA we are "neighbors" and rich neighbors at that. As long as a good fraction of the Islamic population sees bleak prospects, then circulating xenophobic memes will excite the fringe warriors to do and/or die efforts. Bummer. Keith From msd001 at gmail.com Fri May 4 01:35:13 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:35:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705030939n695d4ecbo2409b6244f05d0f3@mail.gmail.com> References: <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0705030937v47f29ba9u3da6ccc5848ced69@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0705030939n695d4ecbo2409b6244f05d0f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240705031835i29e9738fn18487318e9a2240b@mail.gmail.com> On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > > > > > Exactly. What the FUCK is your problem, people? Are you all a bunch of > > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster fuckwads > > or what?? Your mothers all wear combat boots!! I say you betta get off > > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE BLOODY > > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in charge > > I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA > > > Oh, and by the way ... in case there are any goddamn bloody retards on here > ... > I wasn't serious ;-) You were really in character up to the "adipose asses" bit. The way this thread started reminded me of the plea I made in AGI to have more exact language for the sake (not _necessarily_ of simplified language grounding) of some concession to the reader. I unconsciously maintain multiple sentence parsings and the more complex the topic, usually the more superpositions of meaning the words/sentences can yield. Normally everything cancels out through context - but when I'm trying to learn new ideas from the smart people on the lists I am subscribed to, the ambiguity of casual language adds up to confusion. I like Randall's point that how one writes is measure of respect for the reader... From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 4 01:56:43 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 18:56:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0c0501c78d96$f2d562b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200705040156.l441ui1D009673@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > "Can you be little pregnant too?" > > No, you cannot be a little bit pregnant... Lee This popular turn of speech has an entirely different meaning to those who have repeatedly suffered miscarriages while trying to have a baby. Many women can conceive but for whatever reason the embryo doesn't make it all the way. So at the moment of conception, the unfortunately lady is, in an all too real sense, only 10% pregnant. Two months later, she could be described as being ~30% pregnant. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 03:03:38 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 20:03:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs References: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <0c5201c78dd5$9f174000$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <3cf171fe0705031600r6d470179r133895566606902@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c6701c78df9$73c54630$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Ben writes, > Lee, as Jeff Allbright is fond of pointing out ... it's all about context ;-) Sure, but of course, only a retard, as you yourself pointed out, would fail to see the humor of it. Lee > On 5/3/07, Benjamin Goertzel < ben at goertzel.org> wrote: > >> > Exactly. What the FUCK is your problem, people? Are you all a bunch of >> > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster fuckwads >> > or what?? Your mothers all wear combat boots!! I say you betta get off >> > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE BLOODY >> > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in charge >> > I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA > ... > [Thanks, Ben, for contributing to my daily laugh.] Oh yes, that is quite hilarious, isn't it? I hope Ben puts it prominently on his website. Surely nothing wrong with that, right? Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 03:34:21 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 20:34:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Back to Causes of War References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070427183950.042a2270@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070428134420.03fc0dd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070501160428.0406a860@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502094316.02c52020@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <0c7201c78dfd$a8f02060$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes >>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. > > It is. And my case, if you read EP memes and war, is that wars are largely > if not entirely due to human psychological mechanisms out of our stone age > past. Yes. If there was no such thing as human nature, or we altered it some way, then wars could indeed become a thing of the past. An important point, however, is that to a very large extent, wars are already becoming a thing of the past (on a per-capita basis). >>Yes, of course. Such growth went hand in hand with leaders of >>nations being less rapacious. > > Right. And while there was no doubt feedback both directions, I make the > case that the sea change in wars was due to the population on average *not* > seeing a bleak future. The way that this is difficult to accept as a proximal cause of war is that history---at least recent modern history---does not tend to bear it out. The French peasantry were worse off in the 17th century than in the 18th when they finally revolted. And, yes, Louis XVI did start a lot of wars to extend the boundaries of France (which happen to be France's present boundaries). But the two had *nothing* to do with each other. If the peasants had had futures less bleak, then they might have provided even more revenue for the state. (They were by no means ready yet for revolt.) >>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. > > It is not the reality of the current situation that activates stone age > psychological traits, but perception of that reality no matter how > divergent perception is from physical reality. And leaders don't take a > country into wars without population support. Among western democracies, mainly, that is. But one cannot generalize over the past thousand or two years. > Now they are able to play off the stone age traits, especially lying about > being attacked or in the current war, lying about who was responsible. The democratic West needed to believe that Saddam Hussein was an enemy. That was easy. They also needed to believe that if not an imminent threat, he would be sooner or later (which I believed and still think would have become the case---imagine the arms race going on right now between Iran and Iraq). The banner of WMD was waved over the people and they fell for it like sheep? Not exactly. Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Hussein had the WMD, and he behaved and acted as though he did too. Perhaps he even did, and managed to get them across the border during the interminable allied build-up occupying the whole fall of 2002 and spring of 2003 while the U.S. waited for U.N. sanction. Anyway, the so-called responsible leaders of Congress almost to a man and woman---who have their own incredibly expensive staffs to help them come to responsible conclusions---voted overwhelmingly to support the war. > The spread and high influence of xenophobic memes is (in this EP model) a > conditional response. Humans are not automatically xenophobic like chimps > are. Oh, who says? It was entirely natural, I claim, for each American Indian tribe to have the notion that they were "the people" embedded into their languages, and that other tribes weren't even people. (Naturally, there had to be a few exceptions.) It was an ESS. Tribes without such xenophobia didn't thrive as well. > Xenophobia in a population rises when people (on average) see a bleak > future. I make the case this evolved trait is mechanistic. The way to > correct a bleak future back in the stone age was to kill neighbors which is > what xenophobic memes work the warriors up to. I dispute that xenophobia rises only when people see a bleak future. Just visit a high school or college campus in California and see the self- segregation happening in the cafeteria. People naturally prefer their own "kind" (however it happens to be culturally determined at a given time), and a consequent diminution of trust of "the others". >> > But the ultimate reason you get a forest fire is the slow accumulation >> > of fuel. >> >>In the forest fire case, yes, it can come to be an inevitability. That is, if >>a people becomes deprived enough, then they will either individually >>or socially get violent. But to the degree---again---that this is also a >>historical inquiry, then we simply have that this does *not* explain >>all modern wars. Too many wars occurred in which evidence of over- >>population, resource depravation, etc., is not present. > > None of these are needed to trip wars. As I mentioned with the US Civil > War, all it took was perception in the south of a bleak future, that is > without slaves. And they were right. Why need I parade the many counter-examples again? Princes of Italian city states, King Louis XVI, Hitler's attack on the U.S.S.R. These simply did *not* require perception of a bleak future on anyone's part. It was aggrandisement of the leaders of one kind or another. >> > 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. >> >>You don't think that of all the wars in Europe between 1300 and >>1800 I could not find ones in which economic growth on both >>sides was as high as the population growth? > > Given the model, you can inject factors anywhere in the chain. False > perception of a bleak future would do to up the gain of xenophobic memes > leading to war. False belief the country had been attacked would do > it. In fact this last is *widely* exploited by leaders, consider the US > entry into the Vietnam war or the events that triggered the 1846 war with > Mexico or the Spanish American war. Either bleak futures or false perceptions of bleak futures---the hypothesis visibly widens over the many exchanges. Now any attack or insult to a country (e.g. 1898 or 1846) is categorized as "perception of bleak future". Come now. > The psychological factor at work there was the perception by the population > that the US had been attacked. 9/11 certainly was an event which would > trip the "we have been attacked!!!" sensor. That's why a majority of the US > population supported the "war leader." Quite right. Not bleak prospects or anticipation of same, but an in-built tribal defense mechanism absolutely *necessary* to the preservation of EEA bands, tribes, city-states, and modern nations. France *had* to put 4 million men on the line in 1940 against the German menace ---ten percent of their entire population!---and at least that gave them a fighting chance. Without any such support when attacked---or in their case when attack was imminent (an idiot could see that Hitler would turn on the west soon)---then there would have been no France to fall. > The factors involved are additive if not multiplicative. I make no claim > it is easy to untangle the complexities that are partly the result of polity > scale up from bands of at most a hundred people to nations a million > times larger. Good. > However, it is better to have a even a poor model than to have none at > all. A poor model can be tested and improved or it may lead to a better > model. And in this model, it leads to an understanding of the long range > importance of low or even zero population growth unless you want to > have wars. Yes, we always need better models---or, when we can't get anything worthy of the name---better explanations. Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 03:41:01 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 20:41:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook References: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net><0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705031556n1fb28cbeu30963165d0cf8d68@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c7701c78dfe$5d000340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell Wallace writes > On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > How about Santa Claus? Do you really think that there is a fact of the > > matter regarding an individual who lives at the north pole and arranges > > for gifts to somewhat magically be delivered on Christmas day to > > deserving children around the world? > > There are various sources of data that entitle me to claim there is a > fact of the matter in this case, such as the observed absence of Santa's > workshop at the geographical north pole. This would be equivalent to > the example I gave about the absence of gods on top of Mount Olympus. And what about my examples of golden tablets from Moroni, Muhummad rising to heaven on a winged horse, virgin births, the whole lot? But maybe you'd rather skip that, which would be okay, and cut to the chase here, for you, which seems to be > And my question stands: do you not agree that he who sets out to > destroy something vital, should first have a viable replacement ready? Yes and no. I concur that the west has perhaps committed suicide by abadoning its religion. But the source of its strength---open inquiry also perhaps laid the seeds of its ruin. Well, that is too bad. But what I am concerned about *here* is a search for truth. On this list, it is necessary to say what is true, and to separate it from what is false. The final line from the Terry Pratchett piece: > Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become? In these discussions, I simply refuse to believe things that I know not to be true. Lee ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which reminds me of a Terry Pratchett quote... *rummage* here we are: Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape. Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies. Susan: So we can believe the big ones? Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing. Susan: They're not the same at all. Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged. Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what's the point? Death: You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become? From moulton at moulton.com Fri May 4 03:41:33 2007 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 20:41:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <1178250094.3449.592.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 20:06 -0700, spike wrote: > After thinking about this for years, long after realizing that the religion > I knew was not true, I finally realized that it matters to me if my religion > is true. I love true things. Religion should be treated as any scientific > theory. In that sense, altho I am now an atheist, I still have the > fundamentalist's outlook, ja? > Spike Interesting points. Given the history of the term "fundamentalist" I prefer to restrict my usage of it. This I use the term for referring to fundamentalists in the sense of religious faith and try to use other terms to refer to the persons who are deeply and critically interested in the accuracy and validity of ideas but who do not have faith. Of course coming up with the other terms is not a simple matter. Fred From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri May 4 04:14:30 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 05:14:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook In-Reply-To: <0c7701c78dfe$5d000340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705031556n1fb28cbeu30963165d0cf8d68@mail.gmail.com> <0c7701c78dfe$5d000340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705032114t48fc24d5r73df7986f416b726@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > And what about my examples of golden tablets from Moroni, Muhummad > rising to heaven on a winged horse, virgin births, the whole lot? As I said earlier, I am not defending the idea that all the events described in the Bible and other religious texts should be regarded as having literally occured; the way I got into this discussion was noticing you making the quite stunning remark that you favored fundamentalism of all sides over rational moderation. Yes and no. I concur that the west has perhaps committed suicide > by abadoning its religion. But the source of its strength---open inquiry > also perhaps laid the seeds of its ruin. Open inquiry is a freedom. It's up to us what use we make of it. If we use it to destroy the basis of continued life, well then it will cease to exist when we do. But we have free will; we can choose otherwise. Well, that is too bad. Perhaps, but I haven't given up on the survival of our values and the civilization that supports them, however slim the odds may be. But what > I am concerned about *here* is a search for truth. On this list, it is > necessary to say what is true, and to separate it from what is false. And the truth is that a) you cannot either prove or disprove the existence of God and b) the real motive driving fanatical atheism derives from precisely the same evolutionary psychology as the motive driving fanatical religion. A dispassionate quest for the truth would eschew both. In these discussions, I simply refuse to believe things that I know not > to be true. I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm asking you to refrain from consigning science to the trash heap of history, particularly on the basis of mere assumptions. The other day I had a conversation with a moderate Christian who believed there must be flaws in evolutionary theory. It was more productive than previous such conversations because I've finally figured out what's going on: he thinks that because he's been told by people like Dawkins - professionals he trusts to know what they're talking about - that evolution disproves the existence of God, and he therefore _correctly_ (given the information available to him) discards, or at least becomes very skeptical of, evolution. So on this occasion I was able to tell him Dawkins is full of shit, and try to communicate the real grandeur of evolution as we now understand it. But there is only one of me, and I can't explain this to every Christian in the world. I can't personally undo the work of every saboteur. If you won't refrain from attempting to destroy religion, will you refrain from attempting to destroy science? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moulton at moulton.com Fri May 4 04:17:07 2007 From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 21:17:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <46397638.5010008@mac.com> References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <46397638.5010008@mac.com> Message-ID: <1178252227.3449.618.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 22:42 -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote: > I wish that > fundamentalists cared about the truth. I do not believe that the > majority of them do at all. They care only to assert that they have > the only Truth while not needing to understand or inquire at all. This > is not at all the same thing. But I am very sure you know that. I realize now that I should have been more nuanced in my post. Even within what we broadly call fundamentalists there are differences of outlook and emphasis. Fundamentalists will typically say that "Truth" with a capital T derives from (or is a component of) their particular god/deity. Within the overall category of Fundamentalists there is a subset who agree with the previous sentence but also state that it is important to be doctrinally correct in both theology as well as personal practice. Thus for them the part of their religious life is the search for truth in the study of their religious texts; and following the "truth" that they find. Historically this has lead to numerous schisms amongst the Protestants as they search for truth. Of course they conceive of the methods for determining "truth" differently that most people on this list. However if you ask them if they are searching for truth they will say that they are. But of course they have not read The Retreat to Commitment by Bartley. Fred From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 4 04:20:38 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:20:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook In-Reply-To: <0c7701c78dfe$5d000340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <200705040420.l444Khxw016444@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin ... > ... Muhummad rising to heaven on a winged horse... Heretic! It was a hoofed bird. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 4 04:32:59 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:32:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <1178250094.3449.592.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Fred C. Moulton > Subject: Re: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds > > On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 20:06 -0700, spike wrote: > > ... altho I am now an atheist, I still have the > > fundamentalist's outlook, ja? > > > > Spike > > Interesting points. Given the history of the term "fundamentalist" I > prefer to restrict my usage of it. This I use the term for referring to > fundamentalists in the sense of religious faith and try to use other > terms to refer to the persons who are deeply and critically interested > in the accuracy and validity of ideas but who do not have faith. Of > course coming up with the other terms is not a simple matter. > > Fred Fred, something I left out of my post is that religion for me was an extremely positive experience. I cannot even think of a negative part of it. The family aspects of religion, my friends, the music, the scholarly aspects, all of it was good to me, more positive for me than for anyone else I know. I loved my church and my church life. My friends and acquaintances were absolutely astounded that I could ever give it up, thought I had gone insane. I had gone sane however. I had no choice: I realized I could not control what I believe, and I no longer believed the doctrine to be true. True matters more than happy. So, into the old bit bucket with it, all of it. I miss it to this day I confess. But truth makes me happy too, even the grim truth of our temporary nature in a vast uncaring universe. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 4 04:43:14 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 00:43:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Back to Causes of War In-Reply-To: <0c7201c78dfd$a8f02060$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070427183950.042a2270@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070428134420.03fc0dd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070501160428.0406a860@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502094316.02c52020@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504004034.0419d960@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:34 PM 5/3/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: snip > > However, it is better to have a even a poor model than to have none at > > all. A poor model can be tested and improved or it may lead to a better > > model. And in this model, it leads to an understanding of the long range > > importance of low or even zero population growth unless you want to > > have wars. > >Yes, we always need better models---or, when we can't get anything >worthy of the name---better explanations. I think you should read my EP memes and war paper/model. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 Let me know when you have done so. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 4 04:52:46 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 23:52:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a trifle of nomenclature In-Reply-To: <0c7201c78dfd$a8f02060$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070427183950.042a2270@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070428134420.03fc0dd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070501160428.0406a860@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502094316.02c52020@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0c7201c78dfd$a8f02060$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070503234959.023aa080@satx.rr.com> At 08:34 PM 5/3/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: >Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Hussein >had the WMD, and he behaved and acted as though he did too. I was under the impression that this was his given name, but no--and neither is Hussein his surname. Here's the good oil: What a relief to know that! Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 04:49:08 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 21:49:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook References: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net><0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0705031556n1fb28cbeu30963165d0cf8d68@mail.gmail.com><0c7701c78dfe$5d000340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705032114t48fc24d5r73df7986f416b726@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0c9401c78e08$2aff85a0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Russell writes > As I said earlier, I am not defending the idea that all the events > described in the Bible and other religious texts should be regarded > as having literally occured; the way I got into this discussion was > noticing you making the quite stunning remark that you favored > fundamentalism of all sides over rational moderation. Egads! Can hardly believe I would have said such a thing. Never mind. I repudiate it. Perhaps you think that modern liberal theology is "rational moderation". It's not. It's a *retreat* from rationalism to commitment, as explained in Bartley's book---"The Retreat To Commitment"---which is (or should be), the bible of Pan Critical Rationalism. (Sorry for the word choice :-) > > Yes and no. I concur that the west has perhaps committed suicide > > by abadoning its religion. But the source of its strength---open inquiry > > also perhaps laid the seeds of its ruin. > > Open inquiry is a freedom. It's up to us what use we make of it. > If we use it to destroy the basis of continued life, well then it wil > cease to exist when we do. But we have free will; we can choose > otherwise. Well, if by "we" you mean the entire collective consciousness of the West, or *all* the people living there. That cannot happen. As you say (or implied, at least) the people appear to need something beyond mere rationality. By losing faith in God, and having failed to be able to replace it with anything that causes (1) large families, (2) high confidence in ourselves and our institutions, and (3) tighter moral precepts and higher abhorence of vulgarity and coarseness, indeed the West may be doomed. Heaven knows that only the Singularity can save us, to mix a mess of metaphors. The Americans passed up (1) by refusing either to go along with Brigham Young's great ideas, and by not taking Galton seriously enough. And about (2)? How did we lose (2)? The Marxists and anthropologists like Boas and his followers mainly did the trick, and they also took down (3) while they were at it. Or, it may be that there is a natural cycle to these things, and if they hadn't done it, the society would have lost its asabiya (or social capital) some other way. > > ...that is too bad. > > Perhaps, but I haven't given up on the survival of our values and the > civilization that supports them, however slim the odds may be. Good man. > And the truth is that a) you cannot either prove or disprove the > existence of God and b) the real motive driving fanatical atheism > derives from precisely the same evolutionary psychology as the > motive driving fanatical religion. A dispassionate quest for the > truth would eschew both. Nah. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy either. But I'll let Stathis continue---he's on a roll. Lee From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 4 05:16:31 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 22:16:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pronunciation standards and cow lifeforms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200705040516.l445GWx6003104@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK ... > > On 5/3/07, spike wrote: ... > > ... But nearly every country on this planet devours beef, so > they must have cows too... >... > > > > Nope, pardner. We euro cowboys tend to frequent discos and nightclubs. :) ... > > > > Europe has pretty well been fenced in since before the US began, and > has lush green grassy meadows for the cows. BillK This article just appeared on CNN, as if on cue, about cows in the Swiss alps. It explains so much. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/DESTINATIONS/05/03/cow.culture/index.html Many amusing passages, including this: ...Olle tells me that even cows become victims of the mountains, occasionally wandering off cliffs. He says, "Alpine farmers expect to lose some of their cows in 'hiking accidents.' These days cows are double the weight of cows a hundred years ago ... and no less stupid. If one wanders off a cliff in search of greener grass, the others follow. One time at the high Alp above our village, 40 cows performed this stunt. They died like lemmings... {8^D spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 05:33:19 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 22:33:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] a trifle of nomenclature 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> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502094316.02c52020@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0c7201c78dfd$a8f02060$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503234959.023aa080@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <0ca301c78e0d$c7168790$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Damien writes >>Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Hussein >>had the WMD, and he behaved and acted as though he did too. > > I was under the impression that this was his given name, but no--and > neither is Hussein his surname. Here's the good oil: > ... He should have been addressed, even internationally, as he wished to be addressed (Miss Manners again). If we don't know, then it's a trade-off between brevity (as in Saddam, or Hussein) and politeness, which for us would be Mr. Hussein, in order to show respect. (I am making no comment on the alleged deliberate mispronunciation of "Hussein" by Bush the First in order to rattle him.) Lee > simply his last name on second reference. But in the case of the > leader of Iraq, neither Saddam nor Hussein is technically a surname. > > Journalists have worried that choosing to address the leader by his > first name is somehow rude and smacks of the dismissive tone that > President George Bush (and his father before him) has often been > accused of using. > > The country's main news wire service, the Canadian Press, along with > its sister organization in the U.S., the Associated Press, have > decided to go with "Saddam." The National Post and Toronto Star > newspapers follow a similar pattern. CTV, meanwhile, has chosen to > use "Hussein," while The Globe and Mail uses the more formal "Mr. > Hussein." CBC seems to work around the problem by referring to him > only as "Saddam Hussein" in their broadcasts. > > Associated Press explains its position of using the Iraqi leader's > first name this way: > > "He is not usually referred to as 'Hussein' by people in Iraq or > elsewhere in the Middle East. Political leaders and Iraqi citizens > call him simply Saddam or by both names -- Saddam Hussein. Both > Arabic- and English-language newspapers follow the same practice, and > some that use both names in copy reduce it to Saddam in headlines.'' > > John Miller, who teaches "Covering Diversity" at the School of > Journalism at Ryerson University says this issue could be simple: if > most world leaders are referred to by their second name, then the > leader of Iraq should be treated the same. > > But CTV's Ellen Pinchuk, who is reporting from Baghdad, says the > people of Iraq don't address their leader by name at all. Pinchuk > says the Iraqis she's spoken to say they categorically do not refer > to their president as "Saddam." When speaking of him in the press, > they prefer to call him "Mr. President Saddam Hussein" on first > reference, and then simply, "Mr. President," or "His Excellency." > > "Many are not comfortable pronouncing his actual name in public > within hearing distance of anyone," Pinchuk says. > > The issue is complicated by the Arabic system of family names. The > Associated Press recently explained its decision to refer to the > Iraqi leader as "Saddam" this way: > > "Hussein is not his family name. Saddam is his given name, and > Hussein is his father's given name; this is common practice in Arab > families. His full name is Saddam Hussein al-Majd al-Tikriti, but he > uses neither al-Majd, which is akin to a family name, nor al-Tikriti, > which is a name for his extended family, or clan, derived from the > Tikrit region where the president is from." > > Tim Harrison, a professor of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at > the University of Toronto explains that Arabic names are structured > so that their full names offer a sort of genealogy of the family. So, > Hussein is not the president's last name; it is the name of his > father, Hussein Abdul al Majid al Tikriti. The Iraqi leader's son is > likewise named after him: Odai Saddam Hussein. > > Strictly speaking, Hussein's family name is "al Majid." But this full > name is never used in Iraq, except in very formal contexts, "perhaps > to position him in the broader tribal confederation that he's from," > Harrison explained to CTV News Online.> > > What a relief to know that! > > Damien Broderick > > > From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 4 06:00:01 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:00:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Back to Causes of War In-Reply-To: <0c7201c78dfd$a8f02060$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070427124007.0465bbc8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070427183950.042a2270@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070428134420.03fc0dd0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070501160428.0406a860@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502094316.02c52020@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <0c7201c78dfd$a8f02060$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <26144470-2272-4443-980D-070EA647205E@mac.com> On May 3, 2007, at 8:34 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > The democratic West needed to believe that Saddam Hussein was an > enemy. That was easy. Really? Despite its abuses Iraq was one of the more secular and progressive of Arab nations. > They also needed to believe that if not an > imminent threat, he would be sooner or later (which I believed and > still think would have become the case---imagine the arms race > going on right now between Iran and Iraq). What are you on about? There is no arms race between Iraq and Iran now. Or is this a hypothetical if things had been different? There was a time when a nation had to be actually taking war like actions toward us before war was justified, not merely a suspicion that a nation might sooner or later become a threat unless we disposed its leader and even invaded. > The banner of WMD > was waved over the people and they fell for it like sheep? Not > exactly. Every intelligence agency in the world believed that Hussein > had the WMD, No they didn't. French intelligence warned repeatedly that our intel was bogus on this. Germany expressed its own doubts. Some elements of British intelligence did not want to play ball with the party line. In any event the intelligence was in fact wrong and highly cooked and it did in fact serve to stampede the American people. Remember back when they were floating stories of how Iraq could drop a nuke on the west coast at will? What a farce. > and he behaved and acted as though he did too. How was that? He kept insisting the had no such thing. We didn't believe him and made an arse of ourselves. > Perhaps he even did, and managed to get them across the border > during the interminable allied build-up occupying the whole fall of > 2002 > and spring of 2003 while the U.S. waited for U.N. sanction. Yeah, right. What will it take for you to admit we were simply WRONG and you and many others were likely hoodwinked on purpose by the administration? > Anyway, > the so-called responsible leaders of Congress almost to a man and > woman---who have their own incredibly expensive staffs to help them > come to responsible conclusions---voted overwhelmingly to support > the war. > Do you think they did it for the reasons given to the people? I hope not. I would hate to think that the entire legislature is that stupid. There is only one non-stupid reason for what we did. Peak Oil is real and those in positions to know are quite aware of it. I believe they are also aware of how deeply unsound our economy is which I think a likely secondary factor. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 4 06:05:30 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:05:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook In-Reply-To: <0c7701c78dfe$5d000340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705031556n1fb28cbeu30963165d0cf8d68@mail.gmail.com> <0c7701c78dfe$5d000340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On May 3, 2007, at 8:41 PM, Lee Corbin wrote: > Russell Wallace writes > >> On 5/3/07, Lee Corbin wrote: >>> How about Santa Claus? Do you really think that there is a fact >>> of the >>> matter regarding an individual who lives at the north pole and >>> arranges >>> for gifts to somewhat magically be delivered on Christmas day to >>> deserving children around the world? >> >> There are various sources of data that entitle me to claim there is a >> fact of the matter in this case, such as the observed absence of >> Santa's >> workshop at the geographical north pole. This would be equivalent to >> the example I gave about the absence of gods on top of Mount Olympus. > > And what about my examples of golden tablets from Moroni, Muhummad > rising to heaven on a winged horse, virgin births, the whole lot? > > But maybe you'd rather skip that, which would be okay, and cut to the > chase here, for you, which seems to be > >> And my question stands: do you not agree that he who sets out to >> destroy something vital, should first have a viable replacement >> ready? > > Yes and no. I concur that the west has perhaps committed suicide > by abadoning its religion. But the source of its strength---open > inquiry > also perhaps laid the seeds of its ruin. The Enlightenment needs to complete its work. It was not to blame per se for what ills we have along with our many gains from more "religious" times. This country was not designed to be a Christian nation no matter how many revisionists claim that it was. The Christian political forces in this country are incredibly regressive and strengthening them would make this country much worse than it is. - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 4 06:19:05 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:19:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705032114t48fc24d5r73df7986f416b726@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705031556n1fb28cbeu30963165d0cf8d68@mail.gmail.com> <0c7701c78dfe$5d000340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705032114t48fc24d5r73df7986f416b726@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On May 3, 2007, at 9:14 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > > Open inquiry is a freedom. It's up to us what use we make of it. If > we use it to destroy the basis of continued life, well then it will > cease to exist when we do. But we have free will; we can choose > otherwise. > Yes! > Well, that is too bad. > > Perhaps, but I haven't given up on the survival of our values and > the civilization that supports them, however slim the odds may be. > It is a delicate matter to come to a good working understanding of what aspect of what is in that civilization are the true underpinnings of what we value and wish to keep and what is not so important. I know many fundamentalist who are basically good hearted and in many ways noble people. But they have in their head that the dogma they have adhered to is a critical element of all that is good in their lives and the world. To question it is in their mind to give up on everything or threaten everything they value. It is a very limiting position to be in. > But what > I am concerned about *here* is a search for truth. On this list, > it is > necessary to say what is true, and to separate it from what is false. > > And the truth is that a) you cannot either prove or disprove the > existence of God It is not difficult to prove that God as commonly conceived is contradictory enough to be impossible. It is not difficult to prove that the Bible is full of contradictions and thus cannot be inherent. It is up to those who assert something as improbable as God to give good evidence in any case. They have not done so. > and b) the real motive driving fanatical atheism derives from > precisely the same evolutionary psychology as the motive driving > fanatical religion. A dispassionate quest for the truth would > eschew both. Psychologizing motives is a waste of time. Calling atheism that is honest and upfront "fanatical" is unjustifiable. I don't believe dispassion is a universal virtue. Caring for the truth more than your belief is important. But that is a very passionate endeavor. > So on this occasion I was able to tell him Dawkins is full of shit, > and try to communicate the real grandeur of evolution as we now > understand it. But there is only one of me, and I can't explain > this to every Christian in the world. I can't personally undo the > work of every saboteur. > Calling Dawkins a saboteur is completely irresponsible. If you disagree with his argument (as I largely do) then show where it is flawed. But don't put down such a man just because you find one of his opinions inconvenient or even embarrassing. Do we have so little cohesion among ourselves compared to believers? Are we so ill at ease with our minority status that we vilify our own? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Fri May 4 06:24:59 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:24:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Changing Other Poster's Minds In-Reply-To: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On May 3, 2007, at 9:32 PM, spike wrote: > > Fred, something I left out of my post is that religion for me was an > extremely positive experience. I cannot even think of a negative > part of > it. The family aspects of religion, my friends, the music, the > scholarly > aspects, all of it was good to me, more positive for me than for > anyone else > I know. I loved my church and my church life. My friends and > acquaintances > were absolutely astounded that I could ever give it up, thought I > had gone > insane. I had gone sane however. I had no choice: I realized I > could not > control what I believe, and I no longer believed the doctrine to be > true. > True matters more than happy. I know very much what that is like. It was very difficult for me to let go of my religious life. But try as I might, and I tried mighty hard, I couldn't make it out to be true. I also could not abide the places of blindness within my religious community to much outside of importance and value. > So, into the old bit bucket with it, all of > it. I miss it to this day I confess. There are considerable parts that I miss too. - samantha From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 4 06:32:09 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:32:09 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook (was Changing other poster's minds) In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705031816l15c40272v7f971bfea5edfb86@mail.gmail.com> References: <200705030322.l433M2Qk004995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <0bcd01c78d92$b9405090$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030945u24ca8c67h4f44b205c66b3a6e@mail.gmail.com> <8d71341e0705031816l15c40272v7f971bfea5edfb86@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 04/05/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > > On 5/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > Inaccessibility is not license to posit the existence of anything that > > takes your fancy. What if I say that Santa Claus exists, but he lives just > > beyond the edge of the visible universe. Would you say that there is no > > "truth of the matter" regarding the existence of this Santa Claus? > > > > Inaccessibility by itself isn't, but infinity in some cases is. Replace > "just beyond" with "somewhere beyond" and, given that our best theories > suggest the universe is infinite or at least exponentially larger than our > Hubble volume, I would say there is no basis for claiming his nonexistence > in that sense. > The ultimate example of this is the theory that everything that possibly can exist, does exist: Tegmark Level 4 multiverse, or David Lewis's modal realism. But I suspect that theists would not be satisfied with God having a similar ontological status to other imaginary beings, even if there is a sense in which those beings do exist. I am happy to include the Bible as a great work of literature, but I don't > > see the slightest reason why it should be taken any more seriously as a > > description of reality than, say, the Iliad and the Odyssey. If we had > > Homeric fundamentalists alive today we could have the same discussions with > > them as we do with Christian fundamentalists. > > > > I'm not defending fundamentalism - on any side. I think "the Bible proves > the Earth was created in 4004 BC" is as false, counterproductive and > irrational as "science proves there is no God". The way I got into this > conversation was when I saw people praising fundamentalists as more rational > than moderates! It's the moderate religious view that has faith in God > (which can be neither proven nor disproven) and sees the Bible as a source > of moral truth without insisting that every word in it be taken literally, > that I'm defending. > OK, I just used your post as an opportunity for a rant :) -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Fri May 4 06:52:54 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 07:52:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook In-Reply-To: References: <20070503110413.38f036b76284185e041b1b237c97abe6.ee5d2d7f8f.wbe@email.secureserver.net> <0c4501c78dd4$355fc340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705031556n1fb28cbeu30963165d0cf8d68@mail.gmail.com> <0c7701c78dfe$5d000340$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705032114t48fc24d5r73df7986f416b726@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705032352m76c81f82gf6008c2c3e07aba7@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > Calling Dawkins a saboteur is completely irresponsible. If you > disagree with his argument (as I largely do) then show where it is > flawed. But don't put down such a man just because you find one of > his opinions inconvenient or even embarrassing. Do we have so > little cohesion among ourselves compared to believers? Are we so > ill at ease with our minority status that we vilify our own? > I just spent several posts explaining where I disagree with the arguments in question. As for why I'm pissed off with them, look at it from my perspective: obviously I'm not going to change your opinion on the question of religion being worth preserving, so consider the other issue - do you agree with me that science is worth preserving? Assuming the answer is yes, if you saw someone taking actions that, in your estimation, were precisely those that would maximize the probability of science being consigned to the trash heap of history, would you not get pissed off with him too? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Fri May 4 08:42:11 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 01:42:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Samantha Atkins wrote: > On May 3, 2007, at 9:32 PM, spike wrote: > >> Fred, something I left out of my post is that religion for me was >> an extremely positive experience. I cannot even think of a >> negative part of it. The family aspects of religion, my friends, >> the music, the scholarly aspects, all of it was good to me, more >> positive for me than for anyone else I know. I loved my church >> and my church life. My friends and acquaintances were absolutely >> astounded that I could ever give it up, thought I had gone >> insane. I had gone sane however. I had no choice: I realized I >> could not control what I believe, and I no longer believed the >> doctrine to be true. True matters more than happy. > > I know very much what that is like. It was very difficult for me > to let go of my religious life. But try as I might, and I tried > mighty hard, I couldn't make it out to be true. I also could not > abide the places of blindness within my religious community to much > outside of importance and value. > >> So, into the old bit bucket with it, all of it. I miss it to >> this day I confess. > > There are considerable parts that I miss too. Samantha, Spike, what do you miss? Fools try to build "rational religions" but because they are just blindly imitating religion, they only invent sad little mockeries; hymns to the nonexistence of God. You have to start by accepting "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be" as a non-negotiable requirement, and then consider the desires that religion grew up organically to satisfy. You have to create a vision of what humanity would have been if we had never made the mistake of religion in the first place, never believed in anything supernatural, never departed the way of rationality, but had still had the same desires and grown up other organic institutions to fulfill them. The humanity that never made the mistake would write hymns, when they saw something worth writing a hymn to; but it wouldn't be a hymn to the nonexistence of God, because they wouldn't have the idea of God in the first place. Would this world still have marriages and funeral ceremonies? Yes, but they would be different marriages and funeral ceremonies. They certainly would not be performed "in the name of Bayes" because nobody wants to hear about bloody probability theory while they're trying to get married - that's an example of the blind imitation that usually gets done by fools who set out to invent "rational replacements for religion". But even human beings who don't have heads stuffed full of blatant nonsense will still want to celebrate marriages. They just won't invoke invisible sky wizards to seal the deal. Even a rationalist still feels a need to find something to say when a friend or family member dies. It just won't be false comfort. If you have a need that can be satisfied without believing in false propositions, maybe we can get it back for you, one of these days. If it was satisfied by a church in the old days, it may take a while to construct the community, though. What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all right. But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 4 09:28:22 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:28:22 +1000 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 04/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > It seems to me > > that Heartland is claiming that there is some objective criterion for > death which trumps what an ordinary person would understand > > by the term.< > > > That would mean that you could have a test and be informed that, even > though you don't realise it, you died in the last hour (with > > the appropriate adjustment to the pronouns that that would entail). > < > > Why isn't that *theoretically* possible? Why isn't it *possible* > that this could have happened? I can imagine being suddenly > shown overwhelming evidence including video tapes of Lee's > behavior over the last weeks---how in some ways it resembled > how I act today and in some ways not, and have to conclude > that by some TREMENDOUS agency beyond our present > unassisted human ability, the old Lee had indeed been replaced > by *me*. (One easy way is to show that Lee actually commited > moral crimes of which I am incapable.) I neglected to specify that you have not noticed anything unusual happen in the last hour, and neither has anyone else, other than the test result. I think it is enough to leave it as vague as this, because it is how we know that we remain the same person from moment to moment in ordinary life. People do, as a matter of fact, quite often develop delusions that they are someone else, and it is generally immediately and unequivocally evident that this is the case. But although it's crazy to go around believing that you are someone you are not, it would also be crazy if you started wondering whether you really are the person you think you are, and as a result started demanding more and more stringent tests to ascertain that you aren't deluded. (That's rather paradoxical, like the case of the man who had an irrational fear that he was going mad, to the extent that he was actually diagnosed as being delusional and treated with antipsychotics). -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri May 4 10:47:40 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 20:47:40 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 04/05/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a > higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all > right. But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, > and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under > the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the > truth should be. You obviously believe that the truth is better than falsehood and you're probably right. However, it is at least logically possible that widespread belief in a Noble Lie might have a net positive effect. In that case, is it still better to destroy the Lie regardless of the consequences? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neptune at superlink.net Fri May 4 11:23:31 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 07:23:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] POL: DHEA ban Message-ID: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> This is what the Life Extension Foundation wants its US members to send to the US Congress. Regards, Dan ___________________________________________________ I am writing to urge you to vote AGAINST any legislation that would restrict my free access to a dietary supplement called dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). Senate bill 762 (S.762) and House Resolution 1249 (H.R. 1249) seek to classify DHEA as a controlled substance under the anabolic steroid category, something that this over-the-counter dietary supplement is not. DHEA has been freely sold to Americans for over 10 years and can provide aging Americans with a safe alternative to expensive prescription drugs. According to the United States government's Medline Medical Dictionary, an "anabolic steroid" is defined as "any of a group of usually synthetic hormones that are derivatives of testosterone, are used medically especially to promote tissue growth, and are sometimes abused by athletes to increase the size and strength of their muscles and improve endurance." (Reference: Medline Medical Dictionary-March 12, 2007) Based on the government's own definition of "anabolic steroid", DHEA does not fit into this category. DHEA is produced mainly in the adrenal glands and serves as a natural precursor and balancer to many hormones in the body. Controlled clinical trials indicate that its use in young men does not result in performance-related gains and it is not associated with the myriad of side effects that accompany anabolic steroid abuse. Anabolic steroid drug abuse is purported to result in cardiovascular conditions such as hypertension, atherosclerosis, and blood clotting, liver conditions such as jaundice and hepatic carcinoma, tendon damage, reduced fertility and breast enlargement (in males), and adverse psychological and behavioral effects. DHEA does not exert such effects. Moreover, surveys of weightlifters and other athletes conducted by researchers at Harvard University show that DHEA is rarely used to increase muscle size-strength or improve endurance. Therefore, the notion that DHEA is in any way comparable to controlled anabolic steroid drugs is scientifically unfounded and legally invalid. I ask that you vote NO on S.762 and H.R.1249 and any other bills that contain language that would in any way restrict my free access to DHEA. Please write me to let me know your position on this critically important issue. Sincerely, ___________________________________________________ From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 12:27:55 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 05:27:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0a2601c78bac$ce5b8a90$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 04/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > [Stathis wrote] > > > It seems to me that Heartland is claiming that there is some > > > objective criterion for death which trumps what an ordinary > > > person would understand by the term. > > > That would mean that you could have a test and be informed > > > that, even though you don't realise it, you died in the last hour (with > > > the appropriate adjustment to the pronouns that that would entail). > > > > Why isn't that *theoretically* possible? Why isn't it *possible* > > that this could have happened? I can imagine being suddenly > > shown overwhelming evidence including video tapes of Lee's > > behavior over the last weeks---how in some ways it resembled > > how I act today and in some ways not, and have to conclude > > that by some TREMENDOUS agency beyond our present > > unassisted human ability, the old Lee had indeed been replaced > > by *me*. (One easy way is to show that Lee actually commited > > moral crimes of which I am incapable.) > > I neglected to specify that you have not noticed anything unusual > happen in the last hour, I claim to have already dispatched such a "subjectivity" criterion--- by raising the (remote) possibility of someone tampering with my memories in just the right way > and neither has anyone else, other than the test result. I think it is > enough to leave it as vague as this, because it is how we know > that we remain the same person from moment to moment in > ordinary life. We're not far apart! I would amend what you have just written to say that we cannot "know" that we remain the same person from moment to moment---it is a conjecture, of course, like anything else. And Heartland has a point in saying that any part of it that is subjective is pretty weak. We strongly and rightly *believe* that we are the same person from moment to moment, and from day to day, because it has withstood the test of criticism for ages, and we cannot parsimoniously believe that some tremendous agency has been messing with our minds. But the key overriding evidence would be *objective* evidence. Again, one could be shown some videos that would make one doubt that he was the same person he was even an hour ago, or a few minutes ago. Do you agree with this: Were objective scientific means of measuring approximately how much memory change was going on, then we would be the same person from moment to moment if and only if the objective facts were that our memories had undergone only the usual small quotidian changes to which we are accustomed to (or we think we are familiar with) in daily life. The "subjective criterion"---when we are engaged at a basic level as with Heartland---is worthless. > People do, as a matter of fact, quite often develop delusions that > they are someone else, and it is generally immediately and > unequivocally evident that this is the case. But although it's > crazy to go around believing that you are someone you are > not, it would also be crazy if you started wondering whether > you really are the person you think you are, and as a result > started demanding more and more stringent tests to ascertain > that you aren't deluded. I totally agree! And that is because it is so remarkably unlikely that agencies have been altering your memories. We simply *must* fall back (outside extraordinary circumstances) on the usual meanings that every other English speaker employs. We *know* (or, in this discussion I should write "know") that we are the same person from day to day, because alternative hypothesis are without any substantiation. Lee > (That's rather paradoxical, like the case of the man who had an > irrational fear that he was going mad, to the extent that he was > actually diagnosed as being delusional and treated with antipsychotics). From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 12:34:09 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 05:34:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <0cd801c78e48$b55737d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes >> There are considerable parts that I miss too. > > Samantha, Spike, what do you miss? I thought that Spike was quite eloquent on the subject. As for me, it so happens that my meek Methodist upbringing was not at all inspirational. In fact, by the time I was 15 I suspected that the liberal theologians who ran my Sunday school classes were closet atheists, and I started looking around for alternative religions. So I don't miss anything, really. In fact, at age 18 I openly and exuberantly declared my atheism, it was because I finally knew that there was no deity with vague and perhaps threatening powers looking over my shoulder all the time. My brother experienced the same relief a year or two later. > What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a > higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all > right. Heh, heh. By age twelve or thirteen, I was not at *all* confident that this Being was doing very well by me. Things were considerably worse than if someone sensible were at the Helm, though I could not have put (and would dared not have put) those feelings into words. Lee But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, > and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under > the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the > truth should be. From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 4 12:50:03 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:50:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] POL: DHEA ban In-Reply-To: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> References: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Technotranscendence wrote: > This is what the Life Extension Foundation wants its US members to send > to the US Congress. > > Regards, > > Dan > ___________________________________________________ > I am writing to urge you to vote AGAINST any legislation that would > restrict my free access to a dietary supplement called > dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). > Wikipedia and Skeptic's dictionary don't think much of DHEA. Quote: In short, taking DHEA is a high-risk gamble based on insubstantial evidence. The main voices in favor of DHEA as a miracle drug are those who are selling it or who make a good living selling books or programs advocating "natural cures." BillK From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 13:41:18 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 06:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I just watched an excellent (but at times painful for me) documentary about the Mormon Church and it touches on some of the themes of this thread. You can watch the entire film from this website: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view/ John Grigg "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: Samantha Atkins wrote: > On May 3, 2007, at 9:32 PM, spike wrote: > >> Fred, something I left out of my post is that religion for me was >> an extremely positive experience. I cannot even think of a >> negative part of it. The family aspects of religion, my friends, >> the music, the scholarly aspects, all of it was good to me, more >> positive for me than for anyone else I know. I loved my church >> and my church life. My friends and acquaintances were absolutely >> astounded that I could ever give it up, thought I had gone >> insane. I had gone sane however. I had no choice: I realized I >> could not control what I believe, and I no longer believed the >> doctrine to be true. True matters more than happy. > > I know very much what that is like. It was very difficult for me > to let go of my religious life. But try as I might, and I tried > mighty hard, I couldn't make it out to be true. I also could not > abide the places of blindness within my religious community to much > outside of importance and value. > >> So, into the old bit bucket with it, all of it. I miss it to >> this day I confess. > > There are considerable parts that I miss too. Samantha, Spike, what do you miss? Fools try to build "rational religions" but because they are just blindly imitating religion, they only invent sad little mockeries; hymns to the nonexistence of God. You have to start by accepting "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be" as a non-negotiable requirement, and then consider the desires that religion grew up organically to satisfy. You have to create a vision of what humanity would have been if we had never made the mistake of religion in the first place, never believed in anything supernatural, never departed the way of rationality, but had still had the same desires and grown up other organic institutions to fulfill them. The humanity that never made the mistake would write hymns, when they saw something worth writing a hymn to; but it wouldn't be a hymn to the nonexistence of God, because they wouldn't have the idea of God in the first place. Would this world still have marriages and funeral ceremonies? Yes, but they would be different marriages and funeral ceremonies. They certainly would not be performed "in the name of Bayes" because nobody wants to hear about bloody probability theory while they're trying to get married - that's an example of the blind imitation that usually gets done by fools who set out to invent "rational replacements for religion". But even human beings who don't have heads stuffed full of blatant nonsense will still want to celebrate marriages. They just won't invoke invisible sky wizards to seal the deal. Even a rationalist still feels a need to find something to say when a friend or family member dies. It just won't be false comfort. If you have a need that can be satisfied without believing in false propositions, maybe we can get it back for you, one of these days. If it was satisfied by a church in the old days, it may take a while to construct the community, though. What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all right. But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From torsteinhaldorsen at gmail.com Fri May 4 14:26:32 2007 From: torsteinhaldorsen at gmail.com (Torstein Haldorsen) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:26:32 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I am one of these fools you speak of. That is to say, I've been thinking about how we can best fill the void left by deleting religion for some time. However, I see no reason why it should be impossible to design an up-to-date, rational worldview to fill the roles that ancient religions currently play in many peoples lives, without violating rationality. The awesomeness of existence in-it-self, and the inherent beauty of the universe, from sub atomic to cosmological scales is nothing short of poetic. To me, this is worthy of ten thousand hymns... Hey, the answers provided by existing worldviews are so feeble when viewed from an enlightened 21st century viewpoint that if such a project were to be undertaken today, it would probably yield better answers almost by default, seeing how we have several thousand years of collective experience to learn from. We can provide better answers to "the great questions in life" than what was possible some-thousand years ago. Community-building is obviously the tricky part, and it would be cool to have some off-list input on this. Some of the philosophically inclined people on this list probably have the mental horsepower to have a reasonable chance to pull of such a project. Updating peoples world-views with the last couple of thousand years of cultural and scientific progress, and facilitating the transition to a post religious society seems like a worthwhile project to me. Humanity as a whole has come incredibly far in our understanding of Life, The Universe and Everything, when compared to the level understanding attained by average people through going to church and watching television. I'd be happy if you guys would be so kind and provide some input on the subject. My pet post-religious alternative is available at WWW.KHALA.NET PS: Bonus points if you guys succeed in playing the devil's advocate, and shooting this thing down, so I can free up time for other projects. -TT *"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" * wrote: > > Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 3, 2007, at 9:32 PM, spike wrote: > > > >> Fred, something I left out of my post is that religion for me was > >> an extremely positive experience. I cannot even think of a > >> negative part of it. The family aspects of religion, my friends, > >> the music, the scholarly aspects, all of it was good to me, more > >> positive for me than for anyone else I know. I loved my church > >> and my church life. My friends and acquaintances were absolutely > >> astounded that I could ever give it up, thought I had gone > >> insane. I had gone sane however. I had no choice: I realized I > >> could not control what I believe, and I no longer believed the > >> doctrine to be true. True matters more than happy. > > > > I know very much what that is like. It was very difficult for me > > to let go of my religious life. But try as I might, and I tried > > mighty hard, I couldn't make it out to be true. I also could not > > abide the places of blindness within my religious community to much > > outside of importance and value. > > > >> So, into the old bit bucket with it, all of it. I miss it to > >> this day I confess. > > > > There are considerable parts that I miss too. > > Samantha, Spike, what do you miss? > > Fools try to build "rational religions" but because they are just > blindly imitating religion, they only invent sad little mockeries; > hymns to the nonexistence of God. You have to start by accepting > "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be" as a > non-negotiable requirement, and then consider the desires that > religion grew up organically to satisfy. You have to create a vision > of what humanity would have been if we had never made the mistake of > religion in the first place, never believed in anything supernatural, > never departed the way of rationality, but had still had the same > desires and grown up other organic institutions to fulfill them. > > The humanity that never made the mistake would write hymns, when they > saw something worth writing a hymn to; but it wouldn't be a hymn to > the nonexistence of God, because they wouldn't have the idea of God in > the first place. Would this world still have marriages and funeral > ceremonies? Yes, but they would be different marriages and funeral > ceremonies. They certainly would not be performed "in the name of > Bayes" because nobody wants to hear about bloody probability theory > while they're trying to get married - that's an example of the blind > imitation that usually gets done by fools who set out to invent > "rational replacements for religion". But even human beings who don't > have heads stuffed full of blatant nonsense will still want to > celebrate marriages. They just won't invoke invisible sky wizards to > seal the deal. Even a rationalist still feels a need to find > something to say when a friend or family member dies. It just won't > be false comfort. > > If you have a need that can be satisfied without believing in false > propositions, maybe we can get it back for you, one of these days. If > it was satisfied by a church in the old days, it may take a while to > construct the community, though. > > What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a > higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all > right. But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, > and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under > the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the > truth should be. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > ------------------------------ > Need Mail bonding? > Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&Afor great > tips from Yahoo! Answersusers. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Fri May 4 06:16:03 2007 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 23:16:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] lifehouse method music Message-ID: <9b9887c80705032316k2f0e049ai61ea29d4d7bbff09@mail.gmail.com> Method Music Posted by: "Lawrence Ball" Lawrenceball at planettree.demon.co.uk lawrence2001uk Wed May 2, 2007 4:46 pm (PST) I hope none of you think this is spam! :-) Dear All, do try getting a musical portrait online at http://www.lifehouse-method.com It is free to have three pieces made before August 1 It is the result of three years music and programming work collaborating with Pete Townshend and Dave Snowdon Its a kind of cyber-oracle, a contemporary musical I Ching............ Do let me know how you found the experience also! Perhaps off-group? all best wishes Lawrence http://www.lawrenceball.org PERSONAL WEB SITE http://www.myspace.com/planettreemusic CONTEMPORARY MUSIC FESTIVAL AT PETE TOWNSHEND"S OCEANIC STUDIOS APRIL 20-25 2007 http://www.myspace.com/lifehousemethod THE METHOD - MUSICAL PORTRAITURE OVER THE WEB AND NEW ALBUM - OUT 25 APRIL - PROJECTS WITH PETE TOWNSHEND http://www.myspace.com/lawrenceballmusic LB MYSPACE MUSIC SITE -- don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person. john coletrane www.mikyo.com/ilsa http://rewiring.blogspot.com www.hotlux.com/angel.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 15:05:57 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 08:05:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 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> <5.1.0.14.0.20070502094316.02c52020@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070504004034.0419d960@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <0ce901c78e5e$68e003d0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Keith writes > At 08:34 PM 5/3/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: > > snip > >> > However, it is better to have a even a poor model than to have none at >> > all. A poor model can be tested and improved or it may lead to a better >> > model. And in this model, it leads to an understanding of the long range >> > importance of low or even zero population growth unless you want to >> > have wars. >> >> Yes, we always need better models---or, when we can't get anything >> worthy of the name---better explanations. > > I think you should read my EP memes and war paper/model. > > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296 > > Let me know when you have done so. Yes. I printed it out. I will let you know when I have finished it. Lee From alex at ramonsky.com Fri May 4 15:17:33 2007 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:17:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Damien - Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs References: <17645.97982.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <463B4E8D.4050609@ramonsky.com> Damien Broderick wrote: >The slightly farcical aspect here is that Lee was the one who >introduced the foul epithet "----". I was shocked, shocked I say. > > > It's a variety of Tourette's syndrome, in which sufferers suddenly emit streams of punctuation for no apparent reason. -One of the new textually-transmitted diseases, against which humor is the only known prophylactic. : ) AR ****** From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 4 15:57:45 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 08:57:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 04/05/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > > What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a > > higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all > > right. But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, > > and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under > > the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the > > truth should be. > > You obviously believe that the truth is better than falsehood and you're > probably right. However, it is at least logically possible that widespread > belief in a Noble Lie might have a net positive effect. In that case, is it > still better to destroy the Lie regardless of the consequences? This simple question highlights the immaturity of our cultural understanding of morality (issues involving what is "better" as above.) It's a category error to confuse the Truth that we value with the instrumental truth that we apply to promoting our values. We are defined, to a large extent (the extent we would care about), by our values. And anyone would agree that their values, whatever they may be, are best promoted by applying methods from their best available model of reality, i.e. truth. The "Nobel Lie" that you refer to would be in the category of subjective values, not in the category of (increasingly) objective instrumental methods. And it would persist to the extent that it survived the ongoing process of competition between and selection for, values that "work." As for the viability of a "rational religion", it can be clarified in those same terms. We can ask whether what we value in such organizations, e.g. enjoyment of fellowship, ritual, shared purpose and activities, can thrive apart from the methods (largely fear-based) derived from that more traditional model of reality. It seems to me that the answer is a very weak "yes", to the extent that people find comfort in the exercise of rational decision-making. I say "weak" because only a very small fraction of the present population find comfort in passing through the void and coming out the other side lacking all previously assumed means of support, but just as whole and much freer than before. For the rest of the population, smaller-context evolved creature comforts will trump the wisdom of insecurity nearly every time. - Jef From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 4 16:10:34 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 09:10:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Damien - Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <463B4E8D.4050609@ramonsky.com> References: <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> <463B4E8D.4050609@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Alex Ramonsky wrote: > > Damien Broderick wrote: > > >The slightly farcical aspect here is that Lee was the one who > >introduced the foul epithet "----". I was shocked, shocked I say. > > > It's a variety of Tourette's syndrome, in which sufferers suddenly emit > streams of punctuation for no apparent reason. -One of the new > textually-transmitted diseases, against which humor is the only known > prophylactic. : ) It's described in the technical literature as punctuated disequilibrium. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 16:18:05 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 09:18:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning Message-ID: <0cfd01c78e68$37a56e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Now my very small company at which I have been happily employed for around ten years has been bought out by a giant corporation. We still manage, despite certain new difficulties and obstacles, to support our product for our single customer efficiently, almost as well as before. However, the corporation requires that we take many online "classes", which consist of multimedia presentations of (and endless varieties of) materials, everything from "Rational Unified Processes" to classes on Java. (If you are already a capable and intelligent software engineer, and you don't know what RUP is, then just remain that way and consider yourself lucky.) Among my many beefs, I am annoyed at the manner in which the online courses are conducted. The text is good, even the diagrams are quite good, but the animations are silly and redundant. And quite often they're visually distracting, as one is trying to focus on the ideas behind a paragraph of text. On this list recently, a link to a multimedia presentation regarding the basic principles of an individual's self ownership, individual liberty, and respect for private property, and so on, was suggested. It is a "Ten minute Flash Animation" and is at http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html I found it very slow paced. Now, I myself happen to be able---under some conditions---to absorb knowledge via straightforward, old- fashioned, outmoded, linear text. I am afraid that music and animation for the most part add nothing to my learning. Moreover, they can in some cases, such as in the above flash animation, actually *decrease* knowledge acquisition and comprehension per unit of time expended. In short, I became impatient during the ten minute presentation. Did anyone else experience my frustration? On the other hand, are there testimonials as to the effectiveness of said presentation? Lee From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 4 16:12:28 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 12:12:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] POL: DHEA ban In-Reply-To: References: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504120719.041dd1c0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:50 PM 5/4/2007 +0100, you wrote: snip >Wikipedia and Skeptic's dictionary don't think much of DHEA. > > I read Wikipedia as fairly neutral on the subject. Memetics is a well understood subject among extropians, but the skeptics rejected the meme about memes for about ten years. In general transhumanists, libertarians and the like oppose government rules on consumables. Keith From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 17:00:10 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:00:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com><359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0d1501c78e6d$d3c15230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Torstein writes > I am one of these fools you [Eliezer, below] speak of. That is to say, I've been > thinking about how we can best fill the void left by deleting religion for some time. > > However, I see no reason why it should be impossible to design an up-to-date, > rational worldview to fill the roles that ancient religions currently play in many > peoples lives, In your urge to re-design, are at all or have you ever been dismayed at the mess made by some of your predecessors who tried their hands at redesigning economic systems, nations, governments, or even housing projects? It is for absolute sure that Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, and American urban planners of the 1950s beyond number also believed that it would be, at least conceptually, "a simple matter" to design an up-to-date rational economic system, or urban neighborhood system, or what have you. I advise extreme caution and humility in the face of thousands of years of evolved systems that work, however badly from our points of view. Lee ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whatever needs are being psychologically met by the world's religion, I predict that it will be flatly impossible without superhuman assistance, to design rational up-to-date replacements. without violating rationality. The awesomeness of existence in-it-self, and the inherent beauty of the universe, from sub atomic to cosmological scales is nothing short of poetic. To me, this is worthy of ten thousand hymns... Hey, the answers provided by existing worldviews are so feeble when viewed from an enlightened 21st century viewpoint that if such a project were to be undertaken today, it would probably yield better answers almost by default, seeing how we have several thousand years of collective experience to learn from. We can provide better answers to "the great questions in life" than what was possible some-thousand years ago. Community-building is obviously the tricky part, and it would be cool to have some off-list input on this. Some of the philosophically inclined people on this list probably have the mental horsepower to have a reasonable chance to pull of such a project. Updating peoples world-views with the last couple of thousand years of cultural and scientific progress, and facilitating the transition to a post religious society seems like a worthwhile project to me. Humanity as a whole has come incredibly far in our understanding of Life, The Universe and Everything, when compared to the level understanding attained by average people through going to church and watching television. I'd be happy if you guys would be so kind and provide some input on the subject. My pet post-religious alternative is available at WWW.KHALA.NET PS: Bonus points if you guys succeed in playing the devil's advocate, and shooting this thing down, so I can free up time for other projects. -TT "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: Samantha Atkins wrote: > On May 3, 2007, at 9:32 PM, spike wrote: > >> Fred, something I left out of my post is that religion for me was >> an extremely positive experience. I cannot even think of a >> negative part of it. The family aspects of religion, my friends, >> the music, the scholarly aspects, all of it was good to me, more >> positive for me than for anyone else I know. I loved my church >> and my church life. My friends and acquaintances were absolutely >> astounded that I could ever give it up, thought I had gone >> insane. I had gone sane however. I had no choice: I realized I >> could not control what I believe, and I no longer believed the >> doctrine to be true. True matters more than happy. > > I know very much what that is like. It was very difficult for me > to let go of my religious life. But try as I might, and I tried > mighty hard, I couldn't make it out to be true. I also could not > abide the places of blindness within my religious community to much > outside of importance and value. > >> So, into the old bit bucket with it, all of it. I miss it to >> this day I confess. > > There are considerable parts that I miss too. Samantha, Spike, what do you miss? Fools try to build "rational religions" but because they are just blindly imitating religion, they only invent sad little mockeries; hymns to the nonexistence of God. You have to start by accepting "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be" as a non-negotiable requirement, and then consider the desires that religion grew up organically to satisfy. You have to create a vision of what humanity would have been if we had never made the mistake of religion in the first place, never believed in anything supernatural, never departed the way of rationality, but had still had the same desires and grown up other organic institutions to fulfill them. The humanity that never made the mistake would write hymns, when they saw something worth writing a hymn to; but it wouldn't be a hymn to the nonexistence of God, because they wouldn't have the idea of God in the first place. Would this world still have marriages and funeral ceremonies? Yes, but they would be different marriages and funeral ceremonies. They certainly would not be performed "in the name of Bayes" because nobody wants to hear about bloody probability theory while they're trying to get married - that's an example of the blind imitation that usually gets done by fools who set out to invent "rational replacements for religion". But even human beings who don't have heads stuffed full of blatant nonsense will still want to celebrate marriages. They just won't invoke invisible sky wizards to seal the deal. Even a rationalist still feels a need to find something to say when a friend or family member dies. It just won't be false comfort. If you have a need that can be satisfied without believing in false propositions, maybe we can get it back for you, one of these days. If it was satisfied by a church in the old days, it may take a while to construct the community, though. What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all right. But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From lcorbin at rawbw.com Fri May 4 17:14:05 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:14:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs References: <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer><0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer><0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com><463B4E8D.4050609@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <0d1c01c78e6f$ee32f720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Jef writes >> > The slightly farcical aspect here is that Lee was the one who >> > introduced the foul epithet "----". I was shocked, shocked I say. >> >> It's a variety of Tourette's syndrome, in which sufferers suddenly emit >> streams of punctuation for no apparent reason. -One of the new >> textually-transmitted diseases, against which humor is the only known >> prophylactic. : ) > > It's described in the technical literature as punctuated disequilibrium. Yes, yes, yes, have a good laugh! Laugh and the world laughs with you. Laughter is the best medicine. It also helps you avoid *real* problems, making it conveniently unnecessary to ignore reports like BillK's where he wrote on 5/3, 9:34 AM > I can only speak for the UK, but the constant use of swearing in their > [teenagers'] normal conversation is very prevalent. You only need to > walk around the mall, or listen on public transport, whenever a group > get together. They don't think of it as swearing, it is just normal for > them. When they get angry, and want to swear, they run into problems > communicating their displeasure because they haven't got any > 'forbidden' words left to use. So violence is the easy way of > expressing anger. Tut tut, BillK, you just gotta learn to laugh! Moreover, let Randall clue you into some really great Rap, and soon you can be singin' and dancin' away at just how da whores oughtta be cut up and fucked. (I, certainly, dare not replace the latter with "------", after all, to avoid shocking certain sensitive types.) Lee > Look at the stuff they post in chat rooms, on MySpace, or text > messages. It is almost constant, never-ending profanity and explicit > sexual references. (All with spelling mistakes as they use 'text' > language and a sort of pidgin English). From ben at goertzel.org Fri May 4 17:19:59 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:19:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <0d1c01c78e6f$ee32f720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> <463B4E8D.4050609@ramonsky.com> <0d1c01c78e6f$ee32f720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705041019v113a91aanb6a85343dcbb5714@mail.gmail.com> > > > Tut tut, BillK, you just gotta learn to laugh! Moreover, let Randall > clue you into some really great Rap, and soon you can be singin' > and dancin' away at just how da whores oughtta be cut up and fucked. > (I, certainly, dare not replace the latter with "------", after all, to > avoid > shocking certain sensitive types.) > > Lee > BTW Lee, not all hip-hop is violent and/or idiotic. Most of it is, but then as Theodore Sturgeon famously said, 95% of anything is bullshit. It's not my favorite style of music, but condemning a genre of music based on its worst examples is sorta like condemning all orchestral music based on elevator Muzak E.g. buy some CD's by the Roots, that's a fairly intelligent hip-hop band, and they actually play real instruments ;-) -- Ben G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri May 4 17:33:20 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 18:33:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705041019v113a91aanb6a85343dcbb5714@mail.gmail.com> References: <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> <463B4E8D.4050609@ramonsky.com> <0d1c01c78e6f$ee32f720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <3cf171fe0705041019v113a91aanb6a85343dcbb5714@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > BTW Lee, not all hip-hop is violent and/or idiotic. > > Most of it is, but then as Theodore Sturgeon famously said, 95% of > anything is bullshit. > > It's not my favorite style of music, but condemning a genre of music > based on its worst examples is sorta like condemning all orchestral > music based on elevator Muzak > > E.g. buy some CD's by the Roots, that's a fairly intelligent hip-hop band, > and they actually play real instruments ;-) > Well, tie me kangaroo down, sport! We've got extropians defending rap music! It's the end of civilization as we know it. BillK From ben at goertzel.org Fri May 4 17:39:33 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:39:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: References: <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> <463B4E8D.4050609@ramonsky.com> <0d1c01c78e6f$ee32f720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <3cf171fe0705041019v113a91aanb6a85343dcbb5714@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705041039t3e6628e3i408ed4aea547a5bc@mail.gmail.com> Here you will find a serious essay on *"Why Hip-Hop is a Transhumanist Force" [not by me] ;-D -- Ben G *http://www.marsdust.com/flossin.htm On 5/4/07, BillK wrote: > > On 5/4/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > > BTW Lee, not all hip-hop is violent and/or idiotic. > > > > Most of it is, but then as Theodore Sturgeon famously said, 95% of > > anything is bullshit. > > > > It's not my favorite style of music, but condemning a genre of music > > based on its worst examples is sorta like condemning all orchestral > > music based on elevator Muzak > > > > E.g. buy some CD's by the Roots, that's a fairly intelligent hip-hop > band, > > and they actually play real instruments ;-) > > > > > Well, tie me kangaroo down, sport! > We've got extropians defending rap music! > > It's the end of civilization as we know it. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 4 17:01:45 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 10:01:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: <0cfd01c78e68$37a56e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0cfd01c78e68$37a56e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > I found it very slow paced. Now, I myself happen to be able---under > some conditions---to absorb knowledge via straightforward, old- > fashioned, outmoded, linear text. I am afraid that music and animation > for the most part add nothing to my learning. Moreover, they can in > some cases, such as in the above flash animation, actually *decrease* > knowledge acquisition and comprehension per unit of time expended. > In short, I became impatient during the ten minute presentation. > > Did anyone else experience my frustration? On the other hand, are > there testimonials as to the effectiveness of said presentation? It depends very much on the nature of the audience. For me there are very few joys greater than integrating new knowledge, the more widely applicable in principle the better, succinctly written. Such writing is like poetry to me, each word performing its intended function within a structure elegant at multiple levels. I imagine a near-optimum format of intertwingled hypertext with link emphasis corresponding to awareness of the reader's background (take a quiz before reading, remember the results for a future context?) I find that nearly all television is too inefficient and distracting with its multitude of hooks to the lowest levels of human biases, most books are so redundantly redundant that I find myself repeatedly skimming for significant content rather than fully engaged in reading, and with live lectures or classroom-style training I often find more of interest in the audience interactions than in the primary content. Good Dog, save us from regression to the mean! Praise Google and better tools to come! - Jef From ben at goertzel.org Fri May 4 18:17:09 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:17:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: References: <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> <463B4E8D.4050609@ramonsky.com> <0d1c01c78e6f$ee32f720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <3cf171fe0705041019v113a91aanb6a85343dcbb5714@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705041117h6e66caeat7621b3b12132d1e4@mail.gmail.com> > > > Well, tie me kangaroo down, sport! > We've got extropians defending rap music! > > It's the end of civilization as we know it. > > > BillK " Yo, enter the last era Your scholarship into the world of politics and mascara, we operate within this artificial op-era I bring hip-hop terror like the Fuhrer The Ace Ventura into the horror Laboratory laborer, venture beyond the border I'll struc-ture a style destroy your whole aura Plus you're a-drenalin'll rise before your eyes and mortalize, my image hit the skies Deceive the devil in disguise My music I parenthesize Represent the wise, do this be how we enterprise Kid no compromise (yeah, yeah) I'm thinkin fast like drama Dyin I wear your mind away like Alzheimer I pull a mic up out my bomber big up to Bahama The A-O this year we leavin em in trauma Then after me, I plan to leave behind, the legacy or history of the family, the fifth dynasty For humanity, to bear witness to this Del-val-syllable stylist You know the time kid " -- The Roots, "Universe At War" ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 4 18:17:30 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 13:17:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oz Big Dry Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070504131432.024b5680@satx.rr.com> May 4, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist, nytimes.com The Aussie ?Big Dry? By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN SYDNEY, Australia Almost everywhere you travel these days, people are talking about their weather ? and how it has changed. Nowhere have I found this more true, though, than in Australia, where ?the big dry,? a six-year record drought, has parched the Aussie breadbasket so severely that on April 19, Prime Minister John Howard actually asked the whole country to pray for rain. ?I told people you have to pray for rain,? Mr. Howard remarked to me, adding, ?I said it without a hint of irony.? And here?s what?s really funny: It actually started to rain! But not enough, which is one reason Australia is about to have its first election in which climate change will be a top issue. In just 12 months, climate change has gone from being a nonissue here to being one that could tip the vote. In the process, Prime Minister John Howard, a conservative now in his 11th year in office, has moved from being a climate skeptic to what he calls a ?climate realist,? who knows that he must offer programs to reduce global-warming greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, but wants to do it without economic pain or imposed targets, like Kyoto?s. He is proposing emissions trading and nuclear power. The Labor Party, led by Kevin Rudd, proposes a hard target ? a 60 percent reduction in Australian CO2 emissions from 2000 levels by 2050 ? and subsidies for Aussies to retrofit their homes with energy-saving systems. The whole issue has come from the bottom up, and it has come on so quickly that neither party can be sure it has its finger on the public?s pulse. ?What was considered left a year ago is now center, and in six months it will be conservative ? that is how quickly the debate about climate change is moving here,? said Michael Roux, chairman of RI Capital, a Melbourne investment firm. ?It is being led by young people around the dinner table with their parents, and the C.E.O.?s and politicians are all playing catch-up.? I asked Mr. Howard how it had happened. ?It was a perfect storm,? he said. First came a warning from Nicholas Stern of Britain, who said climate change was not only real but could be economically devastating for Australia. Then the prolonged drought forced Mr. Howard to declare last month that ?if it doesn?t rain in sufficient volume over the next six to eight weeks, there will be no water allocations for irrigation purposes? until May 2008 for crops and cattle in the Murray-Darling river basin, which accounts for 41 percent of Australian agriculture. It was as if the pharaoh had banned irrigation from the Nile. Australians were shocked. Then the traditional Australian bush fires, which usually come in January, started in October because everything was so dry. Finally, in the middle of all this, Al Gore came to Australia and showed his film, ?An Inconvenient Truth.? ?The coincidence of all those things ... shifted the whole debate,? Mr. Howard said. While he tends to focus on the economic costs of acting too aggressively on climate change, his challenger, Mr. Rudd, has been focusing on the costs of not acting. Today, Mr. Rudd said, Australian businesses are demanding that the politicians ?get a regulatory environment settled? on carbon emissions trading so companies know what framework they will have to operate in ? because they know change is coming. When you look at the climate debate around the world, remarked Peter Garrett, the former lead singer for the Australian band Midnight Oil, who now heads the Labor Party?s climate efforts, there are two kinds of conservatives. The ones like George Bush and John Howard, he said, deep down remain very skeptical about environmentalism and climate change ?because they have been someone else?s agenda for so long,? but they also know they must now offer policies to at least defuse this issue politically. And then there are conservatives like Arnold Schwarzenegger and David Cameron, the Tory Party leader in London, who understand that climate is becoming a huge defining issue and actually want to take it away from liberals by being more forward-leaning than they are. In short, climate change is the first issue in a long time that could really scramble Western politics. Traditional conservatives can now build bridges to green liberals; traditional liberals can make common cause with green businesses; young climate voters are newly up for grabs. And while coal-mining unions oppose global warming restrictions, service unions, which serve coastal tourist hotels, need to embrace them. You can see all of this and more in Australia today. Politics gets interesting when it stops raining. ________________ From max at maxmore.com Fri May 4 17:07:25 2007 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 12:07:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200705041707.l44H7RaO023799@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> A question for those, like spike, who found religion to be "an extremely positive experience"--especially those of a Fundamentalist belief system: Did you take seriously the idea of Hell as a place of eternal torment and damnation? In the period just before I shucked off my Christian beliefs in my early-mid teens, I DID take the idea seriously. As a result, I found the process of losing the religion highly distressing. For about a year I kept thinking "What if I'm wrong?" followed by thoughts of eternal, horrible misery. (It didn't help that my (half-)brother assured me, one Christmas Day, that I would indeed go to Hell for rejecting Jesus.) That painful experience no doubt fed the following period of aggressive, sometimes obnoxious, atheism. I'm curious how others felt as they struggled out of those chains. Max >"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: >Samantha Atkins wrote: > > On May 3, 2007, at 9:32 PM, spike wrote: > > > >> Fred, something I left out of my post is that religion for me was > >> an extremely positive experience. I cannot even think of a > >> negative part of it. The family aspects of religion, my friends, > >> the music, the scholarly aspects, all of it was good to me, more > >> positive for me than for anyone else I know. I loved my church > >> and my church life. My friends and acquaintances were absolutely > >> astounded that I could ever give it up, thought I had gone > >> insane. I had gone sane however. I had no choice: I realized I > >> could not control what I believe, and I no longer believed the > >> doctrine to be true. True matters more than happy. > > > > I know very much what that is like. It was very difficult for me > > to let go of my religious life. But try as I might, and I tried > > mighty hard, I couldn't make it out to be true. I also could not > > abide the places of blindness within my religious community to much > > outside of importance and value. > > > >> So, into the old bit bucket with it, all of it. I miss it to > >> this day I confess. > > > > There are considerable parts that I miss too. > >Samantha, Spike, what do you miss? > >Fools try to build "rational religions" but because they are just >blindly imitating religion, they only invent sad little mockeries; >hymns to the nonexistence of God. You have to start by accepting >"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be" as a >non-negotiable requirement, and then consider the desires that >religion grew up organically to satisfy. You have to create a vision >of what humanity would have been if we had never made the mistake of >religion in the first place, never believed in anything supernatural, >never departed the way of rationality, but had still had the same >desires and grown up other organic institutions to fulfill them. > >The humanity that never made the mistake would write hymns, when they >saw something worth writing a hymn to; but it wouldn't be a hymn to >the nonexistence of God, because they wouldn't have the idea of God in >the first place. Would this world still have marriages and funeral >ceremonies? Yes, but they would be different marriages and funeral >ceremonies. They certainly would not be performed "in the name of >Bayes" because nobody wants to hear about bloody probability theory >while they're trying to get married - that's an example of the blind >imitation that usually gets done by fools who set out to invent >"rational replacements for religion". But even human beings who don't >have heads stuffed full of blatant nonsense will still want to >celebrate marriages. They just won't invoke invisible sky wizards to >seal the deal. Even a rationalist still feels a need to find >something to say when a friend or family member dies. It just won't >be false comfort. > >If you have a need that can be satisfied without believing in false >propositions, maybe we can get it back for you, one of these days. If >it was satisfied by a church in the old days, it may take a while to >construct the community, though. > >What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a >higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all >right. But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, >and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under >the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the >truth should be. > >-- >Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ >Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence >_______________________________________________ From brian at posthuman.com Fri May 4 18:32:56 2007 From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 13:32:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: <0cfd01c78e68$37a56e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <0cfd01c78e68$37a56e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <463B7C58.9000006@posthuman.com> In my firefox browser I use the flashblock add-on so I can control which annoying animations I'm exposed to. Also there is a user pref you can set in the browser to limit animated gif images to only cycling through once. -- Brian Atkins Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/ From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Fri May 4 18:16:56 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 11:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: <0cfd01c78e68$37a56e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <921538.41890.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Lee said: "Did anyone else experience my frustration? On the other hand, are there testimonials as to the effectiveness of said presentation?" I've taken similar courses, and yes, I also find the animations and "multimedia" features to be a hindrance rather than a help to knowledge acquisition. Generally I turn off the sound on those things (if possible) and just read the text and look at the diagrams. There are, though, good and bad ways to use multimedia, and there are contexts in which animation can be used to further understanding (e.g., if I were learning about fluid dynamics, it would be helpful to watch an animation of fluids flowing through a system). I think that the main problem is that people are tending toward improper and gratuitous use of that sort of multimedia, under the erroneous assumption that bright colors and moving objects are more "high tech" than text and therefore "better". But the fact of the matter is that some forms of information ARE better transmitted via text -- just because bright colors and moving objects tend to attract attention doesn't mean they are better at getting informational content into a person's brain. I doubt I would read this mailing list if its communications consisted of lively Flash animations popping into my inbox every day, featuring little talking penguins arguing in cartoon voices about free will and uploading. - Anne "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 4 18:52:49 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 14:52:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 08:57 AM 5/4/2007 -0700, Jef wrote: >On 5/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 04/05/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > > > > What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a > > > higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all > > > right. But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, > > > and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under > > > the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the > > > truth should be. > > > > You obviously believe that the truth is better than falsehood and you're > > probably right. However, it is at least logically possible that widespread > > belief in a Noble Lie might have a net positive effect. In that case, is it > > still better to destroy the Lie regardless of the consequences? snip >The "Nobel Lie" that you refer to would be in the category of >subjective values, not in the category of (increasingly) objective >instrumental methods. And it would persist to the extent that it >survived the ongoing process of competition between and selection for, >values that "work." I can thing of one lie, perhaps noble, perhaps not, that I think is required. But it's a lie a rational religion would make taboo to talk about. Keith From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 18:45:14 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 14:45:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: > What the FUCK is your problem, people? Are you all a bunch of > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster fuckwads > or what?? Your mothers all wear combat boots!! I say you betta get off > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE BLOODY > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in > charge I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA Say whatever you want about me, but that bit about my mother wearing combat boots was really over-the-top. Leave my mother out of this! -gts From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 4 18:54:05 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 11:54:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Keith Henson wrote: > At 08:57 AM 5/4/2007 -0700, Jef wrote: > >On 5/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > On 04/05/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > > > > > > What I miss most myself is comfort, the reassurance that there's a > > > > higher power watching over you and that everything will turn out all > > > > right. But I know I can never have *that* back this side of the dawn, > > > > and maybe not even then. That feeling of comfort falls directly under > > > > the non-negotiable prescription: That which can be destroyed by the > > > > truth should be. > > > > > > You obviously believe that the truth is better than falsehood and you're > > > probably right. However, it is at least logically possible that widespread > > > belief in a Noble Lie might have a net positive effect. In that case, is it > > > still better to destroy the Lie regardless of the consequences? > > snip > > >The "Noble Lie" that you refer to would be in the category of > >subjective values, not in the category of (increasingly) objective > >instrumental methods. And it would persist to the extent that it > >survived the ongoing process of competition between and selection for, > >values that "work." > > I can thing of one lie, perhaps noble, perhaps not, that I think is required. > > But it's a lie a rational religion would make taboo to talk about. Well, there's the essential lie of the intrinsic value of the self. - Jef From gts_2000 at yahoo.com Fri May 4 18:46:23 2007 From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (gts) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 14:46:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <33071395.831301178219595803.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: > What the FUCK is your problem, people? Are you all a bunch of > ass-raping, baby--molesting, feces-fondue-ingesting cockmaster fuckwads > or what?? Your mothers all wear combat boots!! I say you betta get off > your goddamn adipose asses and start talking about something MORE BLOODY > INTERESTING... or else after the Singularity has passed and I'm in > charge I WON'T REANIMATE YOUR SOULS HAHAHAHA Say whatever you want about me, but that bit about my mother wearing combat boots was really over-the-top! -gts From davidmc at gmail.com Fri May 4 19:20:49 2007 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:20:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Keith Henson wrote: > I can thin[k] of one lie, perhaps noble, perhaps not, that I think is required. > > But it's a lie a rational religion would make taboo to talk about. I can think of one rational religion, perhaps foolish, perhaps not, that has no taboos about talking about anything. What is your required noble lie, Keith? From torsteinhaldorsen at gmail.com Fri May 4 19:21:28 2007 From: torsteinhaldorsen at gmail.com (Torstein Haldorsen) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 21:21:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <0d1501c78e6d$d3c15230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0d1501c78e6d$d3c15230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Hi Lee, thanks for your reply! Actually, I have given this some thought. While I do not in any way consider my self in league with Marx or Lenin, the unfortunate fate of their cause serves to prove that the road to hell may very well be paved with good intentions. The penultimate rule for any effort must to do no harm, or at least to try and minimize the potential for suffering. Now all the examples you cite have in common that they impose a relatively fixed model from the top down. This is akin to creating a static, "better" model, and imposing it on a national level, say.. This model may have faults that one at the time of design is unable to percieve. What I'm suggesting is that we try to create a rational, modular, and dynamic open worldview that may be adopted on an individual level as an ALTERNATIVE to the existing "religions", or to non-religious atheism for that matter... This may preserve and cultivate the positive aspects we find in existing religions, for instance the deep sense of meaning, a deep sense of belonging, and the communal aspects of religion, while at the same time concentrating our factual knowledge of the world, and trying to approximate the truths of life to the best level of accuracy possible. I suggest that we try to create an ever-improving open source alternative to the existing worldviews and put it on the "religious marketplace". If it were to prove memetically fit for survival it could, over time diffuse or be adopted by a portion of the global population, for instance rational atheists and others who currently do not subscribe to any existing organized worldview. Again, that which can be destroyed by truth should be. In the 21st century, we cannot provide supernatural explanations to natural phenomena. We can however try and find the best explanations we currently have, our best approximations to the truths of life, the universe and everything, and try to structure and organize these truths into a humanly cognizable framework. Now, to contrast this with Marx and Lenin and the others.. Boy, they failed on a lot of counts. Among these: Having fundamental flaws in the model. Not seeing or improving upon these flaws. Allowing for coercion and the supression of democracy, engaging in groupthink, eliminating dissent, violating human rights, and last but not least; requiring the defeat of of the prevailing paradigm (market capitalism) in order to suceed. This means that from the outset they created adversaries with a vested interest in their demise. No bloody revolution is needed in this case fortunately, although fundamentalists of all creeds and nationalities tend to prove ever so slightly unsupportive of anything new. We do not need to upend the existing organized worldviews in order to put a rational alternative on the market. Co-existence is a good thing, the more we can influence existing alternatives with rational, scientifially sound ideas, the better. One problem with _the existing_ organized worldviews is that they have no safeguards against beeing abused. This results in political leaders declaring war in the name of God, and doing other wicked things in the name of the greater good. Now, having political leaders with a faith that includes and accepts the philosophy of eye for an eye was never a very good idea, but it becomes a potentially catastrophic existential risk when such people are in command of a significant nuclear arsenal, not just sticks and stones as was the case when the prevailing paradigm of monotheistic religion evolved. Principal safeguards against beeing misused could, should and must be developed, and applied at the very top level. This would be one of many significant funtional improvements upon the existing alternatives. I think it is possible to carefully design safety-valves to disencourage abuse, and reduce potential negative outcomes. I think it is possible to harness and amplify the positive features of existing religions without resorting to fairytales. I also believe that it is time to cautiously and with great humility start to lay the groundwork for a creating a vastly better post-religious worldview for a significant portion of the worlds population. Wouldn't it be ethically wrong not to do so, letting things remain as they have for the last several hunded, if not thousand years? Things have been at a virtual standstill, for a looooooooong time. Way to long. It's time to see some progress... We shouldn't necessarily limit ourselves to sharing our ideas with a tiny sub-fraction of philosophically inclined tech-geeks. Proactionary extropian values could have a significant part in such a philosophy / post-religion / what-you-wanna-call-it. -TT On 5/4/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Torstein writes > > > I am one of these fools you [Eliezer, below] speak of. That is to say, > I've been > > thinking about how we can best fill the void left by deleting religion > for some time. > > > > However, I see no reason why it should be impossible to design an > up-to-date, > > rational worldview to fill the roles that ancient religions currently > play in many > > peoples lives, > > In your urge to re-design, are at all or have you ever been dismayed at > the > mess made by some of your predecessors who tried their hands at > redesigning economic systems, nations, governments, or even housing > projects? > It is for absolute sure that Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, and > American urban planners of the 1950s beyond number also believed that it > would be, at least conceptually, "a simple matter" to design an up-to-date > rational economic system, or urban neighborhood system, or what have you. > > I advise extreme caution and humility in the face of thousands of years of > evolved systems that work, however badly from our points of view. > > Lee > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever needs are being psychologically met by the world's religion, I > predict > that it will be flatly impossible without superhuman assistance, to design > rational > up-to-date replacements. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 4 19:37:04 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 12:37:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0d1501c78e6d$d3c15230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Torstein Haldorsen wrote: > This may preserve and cultivate the positive aspects we find in existing > religions, for instance the deep sense of meaning, a deep > sense of belonging, and the communal aspects of religion, > while at the same time concentrating our factual knowledge of the world, and > trying to approximate the truths of life to the best level of accuracy > possible. I suggest that we try to create an ever-improving open source > alternative to the existing worldviews and put it on the "religious > marketplace". This is all good, but how would you expect it to compete successfully in today's world, in a market of evolved organisms susceptible to more traditional promises that have shown their great appeal to deep motivational instincts? As an engineer, I like the design of your product, but have you ever worked in Sales and Marketing? - Jef From msd001 at gmail.com Fri May 4 19:54:16 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:54:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: <921538.41890.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <0cfd01c78e68$37a56e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <921538.41890.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62c14240705041254r7c4edc7fi3b2a07882663e394@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/07, Anne Corwin wrote: > Lee said: > "Did anyone else experience my frustration? On the other hand, are > there testimonials as to the effectiveness of said presentation?" > > There are, though, good and bad ways to use multimedia, and there are > contexts in which animation can be used to further understanding (e.g., if I > were learning about fluid dynamics, it would be helpful to watch an It may be a generational thing. I heard this same argument about the difference between radio broadcast and television entertainment. The person I was speaking with was reminiscing about how vivid their imagination was to fill in the details of the radio broadcast, and that TV has robbed us of the opportunity to be mentally creative in our imagination. I suppose the same was said about radio vs. reading a book. Taken to the opposite extreme, we could extrapolate to a more compressed symbol delivery than current multimedia. While it might allow for a greater "width" of information, I doubt those of us alive today will consider it has the same "depth." From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 4 18:42:59 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 14:42:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504143742.042a2b78@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:26 PM 5/4/2007 +0200, you wrote: >I am one of these fools you speak of. That is to say, I've been thinking >about how we can best fill the void left by deleting religion for some time. > >However, I see no reason why it should be impossible to design an >up-to-date, rational worldview to fill the roles that ancient religions >currently play in many peoples lives, without violating rationality. snip You should read Pascal Boyer's _Religion Explained_. It will definitely help you in a design task. It is a deep book where you might get more out of it by rereading parts of it, particularly the last two chapters. You might also want to read my paper "Sex, Drugs and Cults." I came to an understanding of what makes cults work the hard way and there is no reason you should not profit from my experiences. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 4 21:01:29 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:01:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <0d1c01c78e6f$ee32f720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070503112734.02304578@satx.rr.com> <463B4E8D.4050609@ramonsky.com> <0d1c01c78e6f$ee32f720$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070504155406.02579528@satx.rr.com> At 10:14 AM 5/4/2007 -0700, Lee wrote: >Yes, yes, yes, have a good laugh! Laugh and the world laughs with you. >Laughter is the best medicine. > >It also helps you avoid *real* problems, making it conveniently unnecessary >to ignore reports like BillK's where he wrote on 5/3, 9:34 AM > > > I can only speak for the UK, but the constant use of swearing in their > > [teenagers'] normal conversation is very prevalent. Actually, I agree pretty much entirely with Lee on this. When I was a kid I worked briefly as a laborer packing and moving stuff at university, and later in an army barracks where I slept with a bunch of ordinary shiftless humans. The routine, mindless but apparently hostility-jammed streams of obscenities were genuinely distressing. Hearing the same thing from children on public transport etc is infuriating. But it's still mildly entertaining when someone uses (rather than quotes) "----" as an advance-purchase get out of jail free card. If you're going to call someone a -ock---cker, why not just suck it up and *call* the swine a lock-picker? Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri May 4 21:06:44 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:06:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: <921538.41890.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <0cfd01c78e68$37a56e40$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <921538.41890.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070504160527.021c0348@satx.rr.com> At 11:16 AM 5/4/2007 -0700, Anne wrote: >I doubt I would read this mailing list if its communications >consisted of lively Flash animations popping into my inbox every >day, featuring little talking penguins arguing in cartoon voices >about free will and uploading. But I could have sworn that *is* wh-- From torsteinhaldorsen at gmail.com Fri May 4 21:27:42 2007 From: torsteinhaldorsen at gmail.com (Torstein Haldorsen) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 23:27:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0d1501c78e6d$d3c15230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: Jef, I am currently a student of computer science and as such i have fairly limited real world work experience. Still, any one persons skillset is generally not sufficient to successfully pull of an entirely category-defying project such as this. Although I have had a number of advisors who have provided valuable feedback in different areas, I have not been successful in recruiting people who have been able to make independent contributions to this project, pushing it forward so to speak. A quick search will reveal the extent to which I have promoted it so far, which is really very little. Now, while I believe this idea is quite profound, and find it intellectually pleasing to have a "religion" of my own design, this could easily be entirely normal delusions of grandeur. I don't know, but i really love this project, I believe in the potential of the idea, and i would love to be able to work on it full time, somehow, some time in the future. Successful marketing and also sales - if you wanna call it that, is absolutely essential for any project to succeed, but one needs to have a marketable "package" first. And also, I would like such a solution to have qualities that are immediately recognizable as superior to what's already out there. Just to get there a lot of hard, consistent theoretical groundwork is needed. If anyone would like to chip in on the theoretical / planning side here, I would be very much appreciate it. As i said, if anyone can play the devils advocate and successfully convince me why it _wont work_ or why I shouldn't go through with it I would be grateful also, as I could stop spending a such ridiculous amount of time on a maniac project that is exceedingly likely to fail at any rate. Actually, all further input is appreciated... -TT On 5/4/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > On 5/4/07, Torstein Haldorsen wrote: > > > This may preserve and cultivate the positive aspects we find in existing > > religions, for instance the deep sense of meaning, a deep > > sense of belonging, and the communal aspects of religion, > > while at the same time concentrating our factual knowledge of the world, > and > > trying to approximate the truths of life to the best level of accuracy > > possible. I suggest that we try to create an ever-improving open source > > alternative to the existing worldviews and put it on the "religious > > marketplace". > > This is all good, but how would you expect it to compete successfully > in today's world, in a market of evolved organisms susceptible to more > traditional promises that have shown their great appeal to deep > motivational instincts? > > As an engineer, I like the design of your product, but have you ever > worked in Sales and Marketing? > > - Jef > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Fri May 4 21:27:59 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 17:27:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Killer apps for AI-controlled avatars in virtual worlds ?? Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705041427q2da4e3dn82683330afc3ef6f@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, In repentance for posting obscenities and hip-hop lyrics on this list, I've decided to start an at least slightly more interesting thread ;-) My company Novamente LLC is considering, in the future, using our AI software to control humanlike avatars in virtual worlds like Second Life. My question is: what applications do y'all think will be most exciting and popular, for this kind of product? Of course, once these twins REALLY have humanlike functionality then they'll be free and independent minds just like us, but with a different embodiment. But my question pertains to the proto-AGI stage, when the AI avatars are fairly sophisticated but not yet human-level in terms of autonomous thinking. I think "digital twins" will be good fun ... the AI tries to imitate your words and behaviors until ultimately it becomes a "digital ditto".... I also can see a role for "digital shopkeepers" in SL, to run stores when people don't want to sit their in their avatars and "man" them... Of course, a digital matchmaker could be nice -- you could send it to go around and find dates for you... I wonder if anyone on this list can come up with any other nifty ideas? I have a feeling there are a lot of great practical applications for sub-human-level AI-controlled avatars, that I'm not thinking of yet... thx Ben Goertzel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Fri May 4 21:30:18 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 17:30:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning Message-ID: <1813998.71771178314218461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Why do Lee and company think that multimedia presentations were made for the likes of them and then rain on others' parades when they don't respond to them? Why do people well versed in neurology and psychology not understand people learn through different perceptions? Not all people learn best through text. Why can't you get that it IS, in part, generational. Old language = words. New language = moving pictures. But it is also a function of education level. If you are someone who excelled at tertiary education, the odds are you can cope with text. If you didn't, my guess is philosophy wasn't your best subject. Get a grip, people. The rest of the world isn't like you. [And Bill, I listen to Eminem... On an iPod! Bwahahahaha! ] PJ From pj at pj-manney.com Fri May 4 21:47:42 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 17:47:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs Message-ID: <22424063.73271178315262253.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Ben G. wrote: >Here you will find a serious essay on >"Why Hip-Hop is a Transhumanist Force" >[not by me] >http://www.marsdust.com/flossin.htm And you know what? The guy's right. Because change is inevitable. For a group of people who can type incessantly about how life is change and how big change is coming, you are all remarkably change-adverse when it comes in this minor form into your own lives. Restructure politcs. Reinvent religion. Rebuild humanity. Is it all just talk, folks? Can't you take a little culture clash? A little artistic evolution? Interesting. What will happen to you when your Singularity arrives? PJ (with her dander up) From hkhenson at rogers.com Fri May 4 21:50:42 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 17:50:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504174840.02c2b6a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 01:20 PM 5/4/2007 -0600, David wrote: >On 5/4/07, Keith Henson wrote: > > I can think of one lie, perhaps noble, perhaps not, that I think is > required. > > > > But it's a lie a rational religion would make taboo to talk about. > >I can think of one rational religion, perhaps foolish, perhaps not, >that has no taboos about talking about anything. > >What is your required noble lie, Keith? It's taboo to talk about it. Keith From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 4 22:03:35 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:03:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0d1501c78e6d$d3c15230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Torstein Haldorsen wrote: > > Now, while I believe this idea is quite profound, and find it intellectually > pleasing to have a "religion" of my own design, this could easily be > entirely normal delusions of grandeur. I don't know, but i really love this > project, I believe in the potential of the idea, and i would love to be able > to work on it full time, somehow, some time in the future. I share many of the values that you've expressed here. My intent was to provide some additional context for your consideration, and I would suggest that you consider also the related suggestions from Keith as to the seductive features of cults. You might also consider that a defining trait of religions is that they tend to reduce, rather than expand the range of awareness and self-determination of their individual members, always with promises of a greater good. To the extent that your project expands rather than restricts the decision-making context of its members, and increases rather than decreases their ability to determine their own future, they you'll have my support. - Jef From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Fri May 4 21:51:12 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 17:51:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning Message-ID: <380-22007554215112301@M2W004.mail2web.com> From: Jef Allbright On 5/4/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > I found it very slow paced. Now, I myself happen to be able---under > some conditions---to absorb knowledge via straightforward, old- > fashioned, outmoded, linear text. I am afraid that music and animation > for the most part add nothing to my learning. Add nothing? Well, I suppose there is indeed truth to unique differences in learning styles. Visuals have always added to my learning, and in great part. >Moreover, they can in > some cases, such as in the above flash animation, actually *decrease* > knowledge acquisition and comprehension per unit of time expended. I do agree with this. But flash is often used as a marketing/advertising concept and not particularilyy applied to learning formats. This was piece was not flashy in the flash loading and waiting sense. > Did anyone else experience my frustration? On the other hand, are > there testimonials as to the effectiveness of said presentation? No. I thought it had a certain charm. If anything it could have been shorter, but one-half perhaps. "It depends very much on the nature of the audience. For me there are very few joys greater than integrating new knowledge, the more widely applicable in principle the better, succinctly written. Such writing is like poetry to me, each word performing its intended function within a structure elegant at multiple levels. I imagine a near-optimum format of intertwingled hypertext with link emphasis corresponding to awareness of the reader's background (take a quiz before reading, remember the results for a future context?)" Yes, nice. "I find that nearly all television is too inefficient and distracting with its multitude of hooks to the lowest levels of human biases, most books are so redundantly redundant that I find myself repeatedly skimming for significant content rather than fully engaged in reading, and with live lectures or classroom-style training I often find more of interest in the audience interactions than in the primary content." Yes. Me 2. Just as an aside, like PJ, I listen to Eminem ... "lose yourself ..." uhmum yaah. Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 4 22:36:15 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:36:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Killer apps for AI-controlled avatars in virtual worlds ?? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705041427q2da4e3dn82683330afc3ef6f@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cf171fe0705041427q2da4e3dn82683330afc3ef6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > Hi all, > > In repentance for posting obscenities and hip-hop lyrics on this list, > I've decided to start an at least slightly more interesting thread ;-) > > My company Novamente LLC is considering, in the future, using our AI > software to control humanlike avatars in virtual worlds like Second Life. > > My question is: what applications do y'all think will be most exciting > and popular, for this kind of product? > > Of course, once these twins REALLY have humanlike functionality > then they'll be free and independent minds just like us, but with > a different embodiment. But my question pertains to the proto-AGI > stage, when the AI avatars are fairly sophisticated but not yet > human-level in terms of autonomous thinking. Well one application is obvious, considering the spread of the pixel-sex trade in Second Life, and it wouldn't require a lot of high-level intelligence to animate virtual prostitutes. But for more general applications, thinking along the lines of more intelligently interactive PDAs should be a good bet. More sophisticated phone answering, with intelligent message-taking (ensuring the important points are taken), prioritization and forwarding; flexibly interactive appointment-taking on your behalf -- these are areas where we expect a human and are disappointed when we get a machine. If the machine agent can effectively represent the specifics of its principle in such cases when the principle isn't available, it should be a net positive. Another area where personality counts, but doesn't require a high level of intelligence, is in artificial pets. Another application would be in the motivational aspects of training materials. Similarly, but more suited to physical robotics, would be therapeutic devices that sense affect and respond with appropriate motivational behavior. In general, anywhere you're dealing with human affect and emotion at a non-critical level of verisimilitude, but real humans are not as effective or economic or scalable. - Jef From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Fri May 4 22:17:38 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: <1813998.71771178314218461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <241700.22552.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I don't think there was necessarily any parade-raining here. What I think is that when someone wants, say, their employees to learn something, they ought to offer multiple means of getting the information. That's part of acknowledging diversity -- realizing that not everyone learns the same way, and offering your teaching mechanisms accordingly. Which means that people who learn best via text have every reason to be annoyed when the text is obscured by layers of blinking smiley faces and "Punch the Monkey!" animations -- nobody is suggesting that multimedia go away, but rather, that perhaps it might sometimes be a bit gratuitous. I had a manager a while back who was very verbally-oriented -- he preferred spontaneous verbal/auditory interaction, whereas I am more text-oriented and visual. We had some difficulties communicating -- I had a hard time listening to him, and he had a hard time dealing with the e-mails I sent. But then I got the idea of writing down my thoughts before talking to him -- basically I wrote what I would have written in the e-mail, printed it, and then went to his office and read it to him. That worked out quite well. And that's the kind of model I see as being a useful one for thinking about communication in the future -- one that makes heavy use of translation and accomodation of processing differences. - Anne "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Fri May 4 23:08:10 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:08:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: <241700.22552.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <1813998.71771178314218461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <241700.22552.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Anne Corwin wrote: > I had a manager a while back who was very verbally-oriented -- he preferred > spontaneous verbal/auditory interaction, whereas I am more text-oriented and > visual. We had some difficulties communicating -- I had a hard time > listening to him, and he had a hard time dealing with the e-mails I sent. > But then I got the idea of writing down my thoughts before talking to him -- > basically I wrote what I would have written in the e-mail, printed it, and > then went to his office and read it to him. That worked out quite well. > And that's the kind of model I see as being a useful one for thinking about > communication in the future -- one that makes heavy use of translation and > accomodation of processing differences. Excellent that you put the strategy into practice and it worked. I (try to remember to) do something similar when I realize that I'm talking with someone who perceives differently than I do. For example, my thinking is extremely visual/analytical (I actually think in terms of graphs and geometric shapes) so I tend to use phrases like "I see" and "in the bigger picture" and "what do you think" and "does that make sense." When I'm trying to be understood by certain other types of perceivers, translating to "that sounds right", "how do you feel about", "does that feel right" etc. Likewise, drawing relationships on a whiteboard versus modeling with hands or other objects can make a big difference in rapport and understanding. - Jef From ben at goertzel.org Fri May 4 23:20:20 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:20:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Killer apps for AI-controlled avatars in virtual worlds ?? In-Reply-To: References: <3cf171fe0705041427q2da4e3dn82683330afc3ef6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705041620g7f024cb8q3e601c421bd7d69c@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Well one application is obvious, considering the spread of the > pixel-sex trade in Second Life, and it wouldn't require a lot of > high-level intelligence to animate virtual prostitutes. But I wonder if anyone would really like this, apart from the immediate novelty value? I don't regularly make use of prostitutes in the physical or virtual world, so I don't have a great understanding of the psychology of people who do.... But isn't the fact that it's a HUMAN at the other end of the avatar important for the psychology of e-sex? At least, I think this would require a very convincing illusion of humanity. But of course, giving a convincing illusion of humanity in that particular context might not be very hard.... A student of mine once wrote a chat bot that impersonated a hot and horny young 15 year old in online chat rooms. It did very well and attracted a lot of email ;-p But for more general applications, thinking along the lines of more > intelligently interactive PDAs should be a good bet. More > sophisticated phone answering, with intelligent message-taking > (ensuring the important points are taken), prioritization and > forwarding; flexibly interactive appointment-taking on your behalf -- > these are areas where we expect a human and are disappointed when we > get a machine. If the machine agent can effectively represent the > specifics of its principle in such cases when the principle isn't > available, it should be a net positive. Yah, I see ... the famous virtual secretary, which according to the AI gurus of the 1960's was "right around the corner" ;-) Presumably with a direct link into "Google Docs and Spreadsheets" + Google Calendar or some such... Another area where personality counts, but doesn't require a high > level of intelligence, is in artificial pets. That is quite possibly where we'll start ... I already have thought a lot about that space though, which is why my question was about humanlike avatars specifically... > > Similarly, but more suited to physical robotics, would be therapeutic > devices that sense affect and respond with appropriate motivational > behavior. > That is interesting. Ideally we would want to work with some physical device that automatically senses affect from the person's body and voice, though.... Sensing affect from text is hard, which is one of the problems with email and chat communication. (Chat is better for affect than email, but achieves this at great cost in terms of loss of subtle non-emotional content). -- Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From randall at randallsquared.com Fri May 4 23:29:45 2007 From: randall at randallsquared.com (Randall Randall) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:29:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504174840.02c2b6a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070504174840.02c2b6a0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <77690C5E-9322-4485-9FAC-F70661B7B3FE@randallsquared.com> On May 4, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > At 01:20 PM 5/4/2007 -0600, David wrote: >> On 5/4/07, Keith Henson wrote: >>> I can think of one lie, perhaps noble, perhaps not, that I think is >> required. >>> >>> But it's a lie a rational religion would make taboo to talk about. >> >> I can think of one rational religion, perhaps foolish, perhaps not, >> that has no taboos about talking about anything. >> >> What is your required noble lie, Keith? > > It's taboo to talk about it. Haha. That was... predictable. -- Randall Randall "Who made up all the rules / We follow them like fools ; Believe them to be true / Don't care to think them through." - "They", Jem Griffiths From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 4 23:42:02 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:42:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705041707.l44H7RaO023799@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <200705042355.l44Nt9vl026933@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max More > Subject: Re: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion > > A question for those, like spike, who found religion to be "an > extremely positive experience"--especially those of a Fundamentalist > belief system: Did you take seriously the idea of Hell as a place of > eternal torment and damnation? Max Hi Max, Not in my case, because Seventh Day Adventist doesn't have that doctrine. Perhaps that sect's designers in the 1840s sat down and asked themselves what is the most egregious doctrine in all of christianity. To anyone with even a modicum of ethical intuition, that one should top the list, the bit about god tormenting for eternity anyone who misbehaves for a short human lifetime. So they got rid of it. In that system, those who are wicked just die in a rain of fire that doesn't last any longer than any flesh mortal would survive in such a dire sitch. They are damned for all eternity in that they stay dead and gone forever; god "opposes their reanimation" to borrow a phrase from a recent poster. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Fri May 4 23:45:07 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:45:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705041707.l44H7RaO023799@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <200705042355.l44Nt9vm026933@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max More ... > ...It didn't help that my (half-)brother > assured me, one Christmas Day, that I would indeed go to Hell for > rejecting Jesus.) ... > > Max Bad news for you Max: the Christians say you will go to hell forever if you reject jesus. The Islmists say you will go to hell forever if you accept jesus. DIYD,DIYD. Thank you very much, religionistas, so comforting are you. spike From hkhenson at rogers.com Sat May 5 00:04:49 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 20:04:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: References: <241700.22552.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <1813998.71771178314218461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <241700.22552.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070504200048.02c28c10@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 04:08 PM 5/4/2007 -0700, Jef wrote: >On 5/4/07, Anne Corwin wrote: > > > I had a manager a while back who was very verbally-oriented -- he preferred > > spontaneous verbal/auditory interaction, whereas I am more > text-oriented and > > visual. snip > For >example, my thinking is extremely visual/analytical (I actually think >in terms of graphs and geometric shapes) snip >Likewise, drawing >relationships on a whiteboard versus modeling with hands or other >objects can make a big difference in rapport and understanding. There are times when even a white board won't do. For the moving cable, step taper space elevator I had to build a model because I could not describe or even create a 2D picture how the pulleys would be threaded. Keith From pj at pj-manney.com Fri May 4 23:59:13 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 19:59:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning Message-ID: <17803950.81371178323153070.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> >I don't think there was necessarily any parade-raining here.< You were not the object of my tirade. I knew you would understand by virtue of your own experiences. >Which means that people who learn best via text have every reason to be annoyed when the text is obscured by layers of blinking smiley faces and "Punch the Monkey!" animations -- nobody is suggesting that multimedia go away, but rather, that perhaps it might sometimes be a bit gratuitous.< Do not confuse marketing with multimedia. No one likes marketing. I'm visual and they drive me nuts. For those who deride multimedia, a little history may be in order. The modern multimedia presentation was conceived by Charles Eames (yes, he of the plywood chairs) and George Nelson (yes, he of the slat bench and groovy clocks) in a presentation they originally designed for the University of Georgia, Athens (where Nelson taught) and subsequently taught in 1953 at UCLA. Back in the bad old days of audiovisual, it took eight people to make the lecture 'run.' Now, you'd need one person and a laptop. Their point was that by "using 'high-speed techniques such as film, sildes, sound, music, narration,' they designed a course... whose stated goals included 'the breaking down of barriers between fields of learning... making people a little more intuitive... increasing communication between people and things.'" [from EAMES DESIGN, by Neuhart, Neuhart and Eames] They sounded very extropian for 1953, didn't they? It was not received well by most of the academics they lectured. Interestingly, the mid-century academics made many of the same old-fogey points I read on the list today. Because the world moved on. The evolution of memetic dispersion won the day. BTW, the Eameses were brilliant in the development and use of multimedia teaching. They created the famous Mathematica exhibit, The Powers of Ten movie, etc. Just those two examples alone (out of dozens) did more to teach the fundamentals of math and science to those who might not have understood the concepts otherwise than anything else I've ever seen. There are scholars now who credit those presentations to inspiring their pursuit of math/science careers. A psych prof in Ohio writes well on the subject of the Eameses and multimedia, considering them in the cognitive psychological vanguard. I completely agree...: http://peripersonalspace.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/in-the-cognitive-psychological-vanguard-charles-and-ray-eames/ http://peripersonalspace.wordpress.com/2006/11/17/charles-and-ray-eames-psychologically-inspired/ >That worked out quite well.? And that's the kind of model I see as being a useful one for thinking about communication in the future -- one that makes heavy use of translation and accomodation of processing differences.< Excellent strategy, Anne, and you get my point completely. It's about translation. Whatever works. PJ From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Fri May 4 23:33:42 2007 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <616815.26067.qm@web37214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Torstein Haldorsen wrote: >If anyone would like to chip in on the theoretical / >planning side here, I would be very much appreciate >it. I always hoped that if religion could be written at new, it would be called, "School of Philosophies and Enlightment". Was there an experience behind your choice of the name "Khala"? Just Curious Anna:) Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 5 00:01:51 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 17:01:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Killer apps for AI-controlled avatars in virtual worlds ?? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705041427q2da4e3dn82683330afc3ef6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200705050001.l4501p3G013089@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Benjamin Goertzel ... My company Novamente LLC is considering, in the future, using our AI software to control humanlike avatars in virtual worlds like Second Life. My question is: what applications do y'all think will be most exciting and popular, for this kind of product?...Ben Goertzel Ben I have one for you, altho it is on ethical shaky ground. Many second-lifers are too young to have ever played with Eliza or her many immitators. I talk to new kids in the company, college grads, who have never heard of it. Came and went while they were in diapers. So rig up an avatar with an eliza-engine to walk around and engage in conversation with unsuspecting second-lifers. Study how long it takes them to realize they are talking to a computer instead of another lonely-heart like themselves. I realize this is unPC of me to imply most of the population of second life are lonely-hearts, but some things never change. Your conversations could be a demonstration of another step towards Alan Turing's vison. spike From jef at jefallbright.net Sat May 5 00:31:02 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 17:31:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Killer apps for AI-controlled avatars in virtual worlds ?? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705041620g7f024cb8q3e601c421bd7d69c@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cf171fe0705041427q2da4e3dn82683330afc3ef6f@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0705041620g7f024cb8q3e601c421bd7d69c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ben - Any comment on my suggestion of applying the technology to motivational enhancement for learning, the virtual learning assistant interacting with the student and providing intelligent feedback? Not so much a new idea as one that could be done better. - Jef On 5/4/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > Well one application is obvious, considering the spread of the > > pixel-sex trade in Second Life, and it wouldn't require a lot of > > high-level intelligence to animate virtual prostitutes. > > > But I wonder if anyone would really like this, apart from the > immediate novelty value? I don't regularly > make use of prostitutes in the physical or virtual world, > so I don't have a great understanding of the psychology of > people who do.... But isn't the fact that it's a HUMAN at > the other end of the avatar important for the psychology > of e-sex? At least, I think this would require a very convincing > illusion of humanity. But of course, giving a convincing illusion > of humanity in that particular context might not be very hard.... > > A student of mine once wrote a chat bot that impersonated > a hot and horny young 15 year old in online chat rooms. It > did very well and attracted a lot of email ;-p > > > But for more general applications, thinking along the lines of more > > intelligently interactive PDAs should be a good bet. More > > sophisticated phone answering, with intelligent message-taking > > (ensuring the important points are taken), prioritization and > > forwarding; flexibly interactive appointment-taking on your behalf -- > > these are areas where we expect a human and are disappointed when we > > get a machine. If the machine agent can effectively represent the > > specifics of its principle in such cases when the principle isn't > > available, it should be a net positive. > > Yah, I see ... the famous virtual secretary, which according to the AI > gurus of the 1960's was "right around the corner" ;-) > > Presumably with a direct link into "Google Docs and Spreadsheets" + > Google Calendar or some such... > > > Another area where personality counts, but doesn't require a high > > level of intelligence, is in artificial pets. > > That is quite possibly where we'll start ... I already have thought a > lot about that space though, which is why my question was about > humanlike avatars specifically... > > > > > Similarly, but more suited to physical robotics, would be therapeutic > > devices that sense affect and respond with appropriate motivational > > behavior. > > > > That is interesting. Ideally we would want to work with some > physical device that automatically senses affect from the person's > body and voice, though.... Sensing affect from text is hard, which is one > of the > problems with email and chat communication. (Chat is better for > affect than email, but achieves this at great cost in terms of loss > of subtle non-emotional content). > > -- Ben > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 5 01:01:27 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 11:01:27 +1000 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 04/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: We're not far apart! I would amend what you have just written to > say that we cannot "know" that we remain the same person from > moment to moment---it is a conjecture, of course, like anything > else. And Heartland has a point in saying that any part of it that is > subjective is pretty weak. We strongly and rightly *believe* > that we are the same person from moment to moment, and from > day to day, because it has withstood the test of criticism for ages, > and we cannot parsimoniously believe that some tremendous agency > has been messing with our minds. > > But the key overriding evidence would be *objective* evidence. > Again, one could be shown some videos that would make one > doubt that he was the same person he was even an hour ago, or > a few minutes ago. Do you agree with this: > > Were objective scientific means of measuring approximately > how much memory change was going on, then we would > be the same person from moment to moment if and only if > the objective facts were that our memories had undergone > only the usual small quotidian changes to which we are > accustomed to (or we think we are familiar with) in daily life. > > The "subjective criterion"---when we are engaged at a basic > level as with Heartland---is worthless. One would like the objective and the subjective evidence to match up, but if they don't, what basis is there for choosing one over the other? If your brain has been tampered with as expertly as you propose isn't it also possible that the objective evidence in the form of video tapes, other peoples' testimonials and so on, has also been tampered with? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Sat May 5 01:30:16 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 21:30:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Killer apps for AI-controlled avatars in virtual worlds ?? In-Reply-To: References: <3cf171fe0705041427q2da4e3dn82683330afc3ef6f@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0705041620g7f024cb8q3e601c421bd7d69c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705041830r6947354dte378686f9035a268@mail.gmail.com> I think it's a great idea, and I note that training simulations are a fairly major market. More for corporate and professional training than for kids or university students. However, to make an avatar that was really useful as a surrogate teacher would require a really advanced AGI, I think. Except of course if you're aiming at the preschool market -- a virtual Barney or Big Bird shouldn't be hard to put together with proto-toddler-level AGI technology!!! A near-term app of virtual agents is to serve as NPC's in training simulations -- the so-called "serious games" market. For instance, virtual criminals in police training sims, etc. ... -- Ben On 5/4/07, Jef Allbright wrote: > > Ben - > > Any comment on my suggestion of applying the technology to > motivational enhancement for learning, the virtual learning assistant > interacting with the student and providing intelligent feedback? Not > so much a new idea as one that could be done better. > > - Jef > > > > > On 5/4/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > Well one application is obvious, considering the spread of the > > > pixel-sex trade in Second Life, and it wouldn't require a lot of > > > high-level intelligence to animate virtual prostitutes. > > > > > > But I wonder if anyone would really like this, apart from the > > immediate novelty value? I don't regularly > > make use of prostitutes in the physical or virtual world, > > so I don't have a great understanding of the psychology of > > people who do.... But isn't the fact that it's a HUMAN at > > the other end of the avatar important for the psychology > > of e-sex? At least, I think this would require a very convincing > > illusion of humanity. But of course, giving a convincing illusion > > of humanity in that particular context might not be very hard.... > > > > A student of mine once wrote a chat bot that impersonated > > a hot and horny young 15 year old in online chat rooms. It > > did very well and attracted a lot of email ;-p > > > > > But for more general applications, thinking along the lines of more > > > intelligently interactive PDAs should be a good bet. More > > > sophisticated phone answering, with intelligent message-taking > > > (ensuring the important points are taken), prioritization and > > > forwarding; flexibly interactive appointment-taking on your behalf -- > > > these are areas where we expect a human and are disappointed when we > > > get a machine. If the machine agent can effectively represent the > > > specifics of its principle in such cases when the principle isn't > > > available, it should be a net positive. > > > > Yah, I see ... the famous virtual secretary, which according to the AI > > gurus of the 1960's was "right around the corner" ;-) > > > > Presumably with a direct link into "Google Docs and Spreadsheets" + > > Google Calendar or some such... > > > > > Another area where personality counts, but doesn't require a high > > > level of intelligence, is in artificial pets. > > > > That is quite possibly where we'll start ... I already have thought a > > lot about that space though, which is why my question was about > > humanlike avatars specifically... > > > > > > > > Similarly, but more suited to physical robotics, would be therapeutic > > > devices that sense affect and respond with appropriate motivational > > > behavior. > > > > > > > That is interesting. Ideally we would want to work with some > > physical device that automatically senses affect from the person's > > body and voice, though.... Sensing affect from text is hard, which is > one > > of the > > problems with email and chat communication. (Chat is better for > > affect than email, but achieves this at great cost in terms of loss > > of subtle non-emotional content). > > > > -- Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moses2k at gmail.com Sat May 5 01:37:12 2007 From: moses2k at gmail.com (Chris Petersen) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 20:37:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <22424063.73271178315262253.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> References: <22424063.73271178315262253.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <3aff9e290705041837u33462b45n2d9829b1bf085c57@mail.gmail.com> Is anyone else concerned with a Failure of Frendliness in the form of a Monty Python 'killer jone' analog? Concerned in Conniptions, -Chris P.S. Analagous to how a SI might solve Chess on a 8x8 board, might it also be able to select the provably worst dis out of all 'your mother' jokes under 30 words in a given language? Your mother may never know... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 5 01:49:58 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 11:49:58 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070504144717.0427e8b0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: On 05/05/07, Jef Allbright wrote: Well, there's the essential lie of the intrinsic value of the self. > When I was in my teens, I realised one day that nothing matters; it's just that we think it matters. Whereas when it comes to the truth thinking that something is the case has no causal power, when it comes to values thinking that something is the case is the whole point. Therefore, values and the truth need have nothing in common. This was why religious and non-religious people alike sometimes talked about "a higher truth" or "Truth": they knew it was all crap and they had to dress it up to convince themselves otherwise. This is not to say that what matters to us doesn't *matter*, just that what matters isn't *true* other than in the trivial sense that it is the case that it matters to us. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 5 02:02:27 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:02:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <200705050202.l4522bYR017703@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eliezer S. Yudkowsky > Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion ... > > > >> So, into the old bit bucket with it, all of it. I miss it to > >> this day I confess. > > > > There are considerable parts that I miss too. > > Samantha, Spike, what do you miss? Eli, to this I have a good answer, altho not as short as the question. Imagine yourself as a somewhat geeky straight male, about 20 years old. It isn't hard to do. At least it isn't hard for me to do; I know *exactly* how it feels. For this thought experiment, you will be my college roommate Chalkie Whiterson. We are the kind of guys that normal girls gaze past, looking for someone else. Pretty much anyone else. You and I have never really had a sweetheart, nothing that amounted to anything. We are students at a Seventh Day Adventist college. There are about 1500 students here, on a campus isolated by distance from everything, in such places as College Place Washington, or Collegedale Tennessee. We have no car, so we hang around campus most of the time. Rather all of the time, but that is fine with us because we like it here. Who wouldn't? This place is filled with single young ladies! But these are special single young ladies, for you see, if one is SDA, one's future success in matrimony largely depends on finding a like-minded mate. Membership in this particular cult does have its lifestyle implications, such as eschewing of alcohol and drugs, fancy clothing, jewelry, not working on Saturday, for instance. The ladies realize this as well as we do. So now, even tho you and I are geeks, these ladies will accept us anyway. Or at least we will do in a pinch, for this is a closed society, immune mostly from outsiders and outside influence. Is it clear in your thought experiment that this campus is more sexually charged than a singles bar? In the bar, some are single, the rest are pretending to be. There is a spectrum of ages, looking for a companion for the evening. But on this campus almost everyone is single and under 30, looking for a companion for life. Sex is seldom mentioned here and even less seldom done, but it is on everyone's mind. Constantly. If not more often than constantly. SDA is a hybrid religion, nominally christian but borrowing heavily from Judaism. We observe the old testament sabbath, so on Friday evening at sunset, all the school books are put away, the radios and televisions turned off, the stores closed, everything closed except the church. Since there is nothing competing for attention, most of the students go there for a vespers service. There is singing, prayers, testimony. It is a highly emotional time, which itself results in endorphin rushes that cause our cheeks to glow. Some are moved to tears, even a few of the men on occasion. No less sexually charged is this environment than the rest of the campus the rest of the time. Most of the women are beautiful, the rest at least acceptable. Many of their faces have never seen makeup, so they have a most healthy and rosy countenance. They are well scrubbed, hair in place, tastefully and modestly dressed. And they want us, they want to be with us, they appear happy to see us. We don't understand why exactly, but clearly they do. We can see it in their faces, for they are mostly open and honest types. Afterwards we go to the back courtyard at the men's dormitory, where the men and women mingle and visit in larger or smaller groups. Some guys bring out their guitars, there is laughter, there is singing and companionship. Happy times are these, fine times indeed. The women must be back in the dorm by ten, so we walk them over, politely saying our goodnights. Then we make our way back to the dorm commons area, where the young men gather and talk. These conversations cover philosophy, religion, science, history, the future, perhaps the girl we spoke to that evening, things of interest but tending away from business or worldly concerns. Chalkie, you and I are technogeeks, engineering students, so we focus on things that will eventually take the form of extropianism: the future, science, technology, what computers will eventually be able to do and how humans will interact with them, that sort of thing. We enjoy the company of like-minded men interacting in the polite and respectful way that these young men behave when there are no women around for which to compete. Since tomorrow is the day of rest and there are no appointments other than church, there is no hurry to sleep. The quiet and often remarkably profound discussions continue until well after the clocks are showing single digits. We eventually go back to our room filled with the satisfaction of time well spent, looking forward to repeating the cycle next Friday night. Eli my young friend, THAT is what I miss. spike From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 5 02:40:38 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:40:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning References: <1813998.71771178314218461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <0d7201c78ebf$1a654290$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> PJ and Natasha speak out: From: "pjmanney" > Why do Lee and company think that multimedia presentations > were made for the likes of them and then rain on others' parades > when they don't respond to them? I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I told my story, how it affects me, and I was just *wondering* how alone I was. Yes, for all I knew (or know) it is a strictly generational thing; on the other hand, perhaps diversity as Anne said. > Why do people well versed in neurology and psychology not > understand people learn through different perceptions? Not > all people learn best through text. Oh, quite right. Even "sight" vs. "phonics" methods of teaching reading are probably --- so I've always surmized --- something that should be determined for each child. (But that's a *very* old thought of mine, no doubt decades behind what is known now.) > Why can't you get that it IS, in part, generational. Old language > = words. New language = moving pictures. But it is also a > function of education level. If you are someone who excelled > at tertiary education, the odds are you can cope with text. > If you didn't, my guess is philosophy wasn't your best subject. Doubtless there are a *lot* of areas that weren't one's best subject if one had a hard time with linear thought, or with symbols on a page. Note that "function of education level" works both as cause and effect. Intellectually challenged people really are going to have harder times of all kinds of learning, but especially the text-based. (And I hope that I do not have to correct anyone's logic should they attempt to infer that I'm saying that people who have trouble with text are necessarily dumb.) > Get a grip, people. The rest of the world isn't like you. Ah, that I already knew, though thanks for the reminder. In fact, I admire those such as yourself who are so in tune that you are able to speak for the rest of the world. :-) Natasha writes > [Lee wrote] > > I am afraid that music and animation for > > the most part add nothing to my learning. > > Add nothing? Well, I suppose there is indeed truth to unique > differences in learning styles. Visuals have always added to my > learning, and in great part. To be differentiating between "visuals" and "music & animation", soft one. I was today in fact at lunch describing to colleagues how my own understanding of the fate of the Japanese aircraft carriers in the battle of Midway was *enormously* and very efficiently enhanced by a documentary. In fact, one could even say it had animation to a very limited degree: the damage wrought by the American dive- bombers was so devasstating because of the depth within the various levels of the aircraft carriers the explosions went off. Together with the *timing* of which bombs landed where and when, something indeed was accomplished that would have been a bit harder with pictures only, but exceedingly difficult without pictures at all. Lee P.S. Not to give unnecessary offense, but the term "soft ones" is from the science-fiction writer Keith Laumer, whose Groaci characters always started their sentences with the present participle or whatever it is, and who, having shells, regarded mammals as soft, e.g., "To be putting up your arms, soft ones!" Hoped that readers of old SF would enjoy that. From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 5 02:48:41 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:48:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs References: <22424063.73271178315262253.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <0d7801c78ec0$816ba910$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> PJ writes > Restructure politcs. Reinvent religion. Rebuild humanity. Is it all > just talk, folks? Can't you take a little culture clash? A little artistic > evolution? > > Interesting. What will happen to you when your Singularity arrives? Cometh the time of our Glorious Singularity, all who surviveth and dwelleth therein forever shall have 4-digit IQs, and all shall breathe in the binary straight, without turning as they goeth. > For a group of people who can type incessantly about how life > is change and how big change is coming, you are all remarkably > change-adverse when it comes in this minor form into your own lives. Ah, but not all change is for the better. I recall someone on this list going on about how literate (and rightly so, I never got around to conceding) 19th century America was. If I could just remember who it was, I'd go back and quote all her posts on the subject... > PJ (with her dander up) which might help with the dander problem. :-) Lee From msd001 at gmail.com Sat May 5 03:05:35 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 23:05:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Killer apps for AI-controlled avatars in virtual worlds ?? In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705041830r6947354dte378686f9035a268@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cf171fe0705041427q2da4e3dn82683330afc3ef6f@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0705041620g7f024cb8q3e601c421bd7d69c@mail.gmail.com> <3cf171fe0705041830r6947354dte378686f9035a268@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240705042005h15b2724ejfc60ccc586141608@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/07, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > I think it's a great idea, and I note that training simulations are a fairly > major market. More for corporate and professional training than for > kids or university students. I have yet to play with a Wii - but if there were a tennis trainer that actually imitated and commented on the person's playing ability, it might provide the sim version of a professional coach. I also envision the avatar being my digital bodyguard between me and the virtual environment: I don't have the attention span to present a different face (literally & figuratively) to everyone in a space. Suppose I don't want my mom to see the avatar I present to my friends... I should be able to present multiple avatars. I doubt I would be able to do that convincingly in real-time. If my AGI-assisted interface allowed me to time slice between 2+ copies of "my" identity, then I am software enhanced via the AGI agent. This is more than simple PDA, because over time an AGI would learn me as well as those others that I interact with. Eventually the AGI would be a second skin around (what I might believe is) my core identity. Call it a virtual cyborg for those who embrace the enhancement yet don't want the hardware implants. Identity security would be an issue here though, perhaps mitigated a bit if the AGI became keyed to the core identity so much that it were unusable by anyone else. From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 5 03:06:56 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 20:06:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0d1501c78e6d$d3c15230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <463BF4D0.7@mac.com> Torstein Haldorsen wrote: > Jef, > I am currently a student of computer science and as such i have fairly > limited real world work experience. > Still, any one persons skillset is generally not sufficient to > successfully pull of an entirely category-defying project such as this. > Although I have had a number of advisors who have provided valuable > feedback in different areas, I have not been successful in recruiting > people who have been able to make independent contributions to this > project, pushing it forward so to speak. > > A quick search will reveal the extent to which I have promoted it so > far, which is really very little. > > Now, while I believe this idea is quite profound, and find it > intellectually pleasing to have a "religion" of my own design, this > could easily be entirely normal delusions of grandeur. I don't know, > but i really love this project, I believe in the potential of the > idea, and i would love to be able to work on it full time, somehow, > some time in the future. > I have considered such a thing myself rather seriously. In particular I despair of enough humans embracing rationality and moving sufficiently beyond the many roots that religion feeds from to maximize our chances of survival. There is an apparent lot of power and appeal in those memes and psychological complexes. I thought that if they could be harnessed toward a more scientific worldview and transhumanist visions of transformation, immortality and transcendence then we would have much more of a chance. The more I looked at this though and the more I attempted to move forward with it the less I believed it was a good idea. You would be fighting an uphill battle against all the other religions and religious systems out there. You would be struggling to create a faith, a very powerful and magnetic meme complex, working primarily from an intellectual perspective. Unless you go in for full prophet and fanatical levels of dedication and devotion to the work you will not be a very powerful magnetic core for the work. If you are not then the work will be picked to death in committee and die a thousand deaths by multiple agendas. If you do form something cohesive you run high dangers of overlooking something critical that makes the result, if it takes hold, deadly. At every step of the way you will be tempted to use language largely owned by vastly different and inimical meme sets and your message will get lost in the stew of assumption about what you mean when you use those words. Increasingly I think that many of the roots that feed religion are aspects of our EP that we will seriously need to struggle to overcome if we are to have a viable future. Our future is in the realm of vision firmly grounded in science and reality. Great mystical sci-fi romps into the future while appealing on some levels don't seem to really have much traction or much relationship to the work needed personally or collectively. I could be wrong but I am quite discouraged regarding the viability of this sort of thing. > Successful marketing and also sales - if you wanna call it that, is > absolutely essential for any project to succeed, but one needs to have > a marketable "package" first. And also, I would like such a solution > to have qualities that are immediately recognizable as superior to > what's already out there. Just to get there a lot of hard, consistent > theoretical groundwork is needed. > In this realm a large part of marketing is inspiration especially of the highly contagious kind. Without charisma all the solid theory in the world will be useless. > If anyone would like to chip in on the theoretical / planning side > here, I would be very much appreciate it. > > As i said, if anyone can play the devils advocate and successfully > convince me why it _wont work_ or why I shouldn't go through with it I > would be grateful also, as I could stop spending a such ridiculous > amount of time on a maniac project that is exceedingly likely to fail > at any rate. > I think the few of us who are relatively awake and capable among all the world's billions are likely to accomplish far more if we see as clearly as we can where we want to go and build the technological (and perhaps cultural even political) tools for at least some of us to get there. I don't think any scheme to inspire or convert or persuade any large portion of the masses is going to work at this point. I rather liked believing that it could though. - samantha From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 5 03:10:29 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 20:10:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070501005517.0229a860@satx.rr.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 04/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > Again, one could be shown some videos that would make one > > doubt that he was the same person he was even an hour ago, or > > a few minutes ago. Do you agree with this: > > > > Were objective scientific means of measuring approximately > > how much memory change was going on, then we would > > be the same person from moment to moment if and only if > > the objective facts were that our memories had undergone > > only the usual small quotidian changes to which we are > > accustomed to (or we think we are familiar with) in daily life. > > One would like the objective and the subjective evidence to match up, > but if they don't, what basis is there for choosing one over the other? > If your brain has been tampered with as expertly as you propose isn't > it also possible that the objective evidence in the form of video tapes, > other peoples' testimonials and so on, has also been tampered with? We are fast approaching the problem you describe in the courtroom. These days, just how reliable can pictures (and soon videos) be? The solution---advocated by David Brin, I believe---is that testimony from real, live, 3D people must be provided, or at least via networks of reliability. Believability then becomes a matter of Bayesian statistics, sort of like it always has been :-) *Assuming* that right now your brain is not being tampered with, and *assuming* that you are not living in a temporary simulation, then it is possible to gingerly reach out and begin establishing reliability footholds. We do it in science all the time, for example, say, in gathering astronomical data. And so did they who first dared to try to quantify "hot" and "cold" on a linear scale. They had to constantly go back and forth between the objective and subjective, until things began falling into place, and they could begin building instruments more reliable than their own senses. So it could turn out with brain science. We now postulate that we are conscious, and that the higher animals are also, presumably, conscious, but not quite at the human level. Already comparisons between subjective accounts and objective brain scans are made by researchers. And so forth. So we assume when describing thought experiments, that the reality is as we describe it in the hypothesis. Remembering that nothing can be certain, that knowledge is always conjectural and contingent, we proceed slowly but surely. Lee From msd001 at gmail.com Sat May 5 03:14:49 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 23:14:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705050202.l4522bYR017703@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <200705050202.l4522bYR017703@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <62c14240705042014v52e91c23h5a38c078855c29ba@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/07, spike wrote: > there is no hurry to sleep. The quiet and often remarkably profound > discussions continue until well after the clocks are showing single digits. > We eventually go back to our room filled with the satisfaction of time well > spent, looking forward to repeating the cycle next Friday night. > > Eli my young friend, THAT is what I miss. I wonder if that is a loss of religion or a loss of age-specific innocence? From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 5 03:37:24 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 20:37:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <62c14240705042014v52e91c23h5a38c078855c29ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200705050347.l453lsTt006429@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 8:15 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion > > On 5/4/07, spike wrote: > > there is no hurry to sleep. The quiet and often remarkably profound > > discussions continue until well after the clocks are showing single > digits. > > We eventually go back to our room filled with the satisfaction of time > well > > spent, looking forward to repeating the cycle next Friday night. > > > > Eli my young friend, THAT is what I miss. > > I wonder if that is a loss of religion or a loss of age-specific > innocence? Ja, I see your point. The place and time I described has a delightfully wholesome retro-ness about it, even today. I go back for class reunions occasionally and to see my old roommate. He went on to get a PhD in electrical engineering from Purdue, returned to our old school, teaches there to this day. I am always happy to see old friends, but it is never the same. Some of those old friends live in the neighborhood here; we get together often. Tomorrow in fact, with four couples from those days, with them I shall be. But that isn't the same either. Without the belief, the endorphin rush isn't there, for me anyway. I will ask how it is for them. Some still believe. Religion is a drug. It can be addictive. How well I know this feeling and the feeling of giving it up. That being said, the extro-schmoozes are a total blast: very cool discussions there happen. Too bad we don't have anything analogous to Friday evenings at old Walla Walla College. spike From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sat May 5 04:07:25 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 21:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <933485.94237.qm@web56510.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Jef said: "For example, my thinking is extremely visual/analytical (I actually think in terms of graphs and geometric shapes) My thinking is...difficult to describe. It is strongly visually biased, but I'm also prone to synesthesia, so there's some degree of sensory mixing in there as well. Graphs and shapes and diagrams definitely feature prominently, though -- frequently, even writing for me is a process of "looking" at the diagrams in my mind's eye and attempting to describe them as best as possible. My brain seems to operate in "layers", wherein the most basic cognitive layer is largely non-linguistic. The layer on top of that is quasi-linguistic -- that is, there are a lot of words there, but they don't necessarily represent anything. Then the layer on top of *that* is linguistic -- when I am writing, I am basically "pulling" concepts up from the basic cognitive layer through the quasi-linguistic layer and fashioning them into something with some chance of being understood by someone who isn't me. And the linguistic layer is very text-biased as opposed to speech-biased; text gets "in" and "out" more easily than speech does. But the right diagram or graph has the potential to bypass the linguistic layer(s) entirely. Which is always nice. Jef said: "so I tend to use phrases like "I see" and "in the bigger picture" and "what do you think" and "does that make sense" I haven't examined my writing to see what sorts of phrases I tend to use, but I've heard the theory before about people's vocabulary choices and defaults reflecting their primary sensory modalities. It does make sense in some respects, but I haven't tested it myself -- maybe now that you've reminded me of it, I will start paying attention to it. It (the theory) does come across as a bit pop-sciencey, but there could be something to it. - Anne "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sentience at pobox.com Sat May 5 05:04:40 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 22:04:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <463C1068.5050407@pobox.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > You obviously believe that the truth is better than falsehood and you're > probably right. However, it is at least logically possible that > widespread belief in a Noble Lie might have a net positive effect. In > that case, is it still better to destroy the Lie regardless of the > consequences? By the logical definition of "net positive", no. In real life, yes. That is, I think the condition you have just logically defined would be quite extremely hard to fulfill. I suppose I would believe a lie if the alternative were the destruction of humanity, but in real life it works the other way around. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From alex at ramonsky.com Sat May 5 05:36:35 2007 From: alex at ramonsky.com (Alex Ramonsky) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 06:36:35 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs References: <22424063.73271178315262253.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <0d7801c78ec0$816ba910$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <463C17E3.4080208@ramonsky.com> Hi Lee, I believe you may be misjudging awareness here... I spend most of my life dealing with the mental problems of such kids as are spoken of below [and their parents]. Having it in your face all the time can get a bit much even when you think you're making a difference. When it does, I go online and have a laugh with friends. It charges my batteries to face another round of reality. I realise it could look entirely facile to those who don't know me, and I'm familiar with the exasperation when people seem to laugh an issue off that seems to me of great importance. But the joy of humor is one of the parts of being human that gives some people strength and inspiration enough to keep working on the less pleasant bits : ) ...So let's hear it for the giggles...and the rap...and the serious stuff that the things we enjoy keep us balanced enough to face. Best, AR ******** Lee Corbin wrote: Yes, yes, yes, have a good laugh! Laugh and the world laughs with you. Laughter is the best medicine. It also helps you avoid *real* problems, making it conveniently unnecessary to ignore reports like BillK's where he wrote on 5/3, 9:34 AM > I can only speak for the UK, but the constant use of swearing in their > [teenagers'] normal conversation is very prevalent. You only need to > walk around the mall, or listen on public transport, whenever a group > get together. They don't think of it as swearing, it is just normal for > them. When they get angry, and want to swear, they run into problems > communicating their displeasure because they haven't got any > 'forbidden' words left to use. So violence is the easy way of > expressing anger. Tut tut, BillK, you just gotta learn to laugh! Moreover, let Randall clue you into some really great Rap, and soon you can be singin' and dancin' away at just how da whores oughtta be cut up and fucked. (I, certainly, dare not replace the latter with "------", after all, to avoid shocking certain sensitive types.) Lee > Look at the stuff they post in chat rooms, on MySpace, or text > messages. It is almost constant, never-ending profanity and explicit > sexual references. (All with spelling mistakes as they use 'text' > language and a sort of pidgin English). From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 5 07:56:04 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 00:56:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <463C3894.8020502@mac.com> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > > Samantha, Spike, what do you miss? > > Great question. I am not sure how coherent my answer will be but I will give it a try. I miss a deep abiding belief that no matter how difficult things might be that it will all eventually turn out well. Once upon a time I thought that the triumph of the Good was a foregone conclusion. I thought that there was a Good that was coming more and more clearly into manifestation in this world. Sometimes it could lead to a complacence but I did not think that was correct. I was impatient for it to arrive more quickly. I miss the belief that people basically deeply yearn for the Good and mistakenly for a time think they want something else more or that there is no such thing. I used to believe that while we are evolved creatures that the natural impulse and path for intelligence is toward self-perfection and increase and that that increase leads inexorably toward the Good, toward mutual maximization of potential toward the highest flowering of All. I see it still sometimes as a possibility, as perhaps those conclusions being one way out the dangerous zone of species history we inhabit. But I don't believe it is inevitable or that it is the only way forward or especially that I or anyone else has much of a clear handle for it. For a time I believed that if I could fully open my heart to the uplifting potential of humanity and live fully out of love for it that I would be inspired and fully alive and maximally inspire others. I believed that if enough of us could do this it could make all the difference. Then I began to see it as an overlay of various mystical teachings I had absorbed during more credulous periods and doubt whether this would make much difference or even allow me room to do the more technical things that also need doing and believe I can be a part of. Much of my life I felt this call or something inside to live differently to show a way. I came to distrust that a lot. I miss many of these viewpoints though. They aren't all invalid but they are much more questionable than I once believed. I still thing that the work of navigating this period in history will take as much a shift in consciousness as accelerating technology. Slightly evolved chimps with godlike powers is not a stable or terribly desirable configuration. But I do not have the tool s and distrust some of the tool I have tried to produce such a shift in even myself. I miss communities of people who dropped far more boundaries with one another than most non-spiritual communities ever do. I miss inspiring others with images of how it all worked toward Good and how we really ultimately had nothing to fear. Now I have a lot of fear. Not just for myself but for everyone I have ever known headed for decay and death if not worse. I have fear for the entire species. I am not at all sure we have what it takes to make to to and through Singularity. I know we can't stay at the point we are, that either we will move forward and drastically or fall back and all to likely perish. But I am much too short on answers or happy notions of how to proceed. - samantha From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Sat May 5 08:04:19 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 01:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705042355.l44Nt9vl026933@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <822104.35995.qm@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The Mormon concept of "Hell" is to be cast out (I always envisioned it along the lines of General Zod & his two followers in Superman II when they get thrown into the Negative Zone) into "Outer Darkness," which is envisioned as a very bleak and cold place. Some modern-day Mormons like to conjecture it might be within a Black Hole. This is where Satan and his angels will ultimately wind up & just a relatively few humans such as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Jeffery Dahmer, etc. Most of the world's "wicked" people will end up in the "Telestial Kingdom" which is the lowest sphere or level of Heaven. To the Mormon mind, "Hell" is ultimately to be seperated from God and to lose out on one's personal potential of having had the chance to become a god who is mated to another god & can create worlds and people them with their very own children. And so anyone who fails to achieve exaltation is damned and is essentially in the Mormon version of Hell. "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become" is the popular quote. "Eternal Parenthood is Godhood" is another one. An added incentive to follow the rules is that Mormons believe everyone who is not exalted will be stripped of their ability to be sexually active. This thought really disturbs Mormons (who would not be disturbed!, lol) but also leads to conjecture on how this celibacy/abstinence is enforced. The Protestants and Catholics generally believe that disembodied spirits and the resurrected do not have the ability to engage in sexual activity and/or marry. I have had mainstream Christian friends who were very depressed over this doctrine. C.S. Lewis tried to explain away the need for sex in the next life by saying, "if as a sexually active adult you tried to explain to a young child who loves chocolate that sex is even better than chocolate, how really could you?" His point was that God was the adult and we were the young children who just could not understand. Family life is seen as the ideal in this life among Mormons and so to be excluded from that in the next life is seen as the ultimate punishment. No spouse, no sex, no children = Hell. John Grigg spike wrote: > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max More > Subject: Re: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion > > A question for those, like spike, who found religion to be "an > extremely positive experience"--especially those of a Fundamentalist > belief system: Did you take seriously the idea of Hell as a place of > eternal torment and damnation? Max Hi Max, Not in my case, because Seventh Day Adventist doesn't have that doctrine. Perhaps that sect's designers in the 1840s sat down and asked themselves what is the most egregious doctrine in all of christianity. To anyone with even a modicum of ethical intuition, that one should top the list, the bit about god tormenting for eternity anyone who misbehaves for a short human lifetime. So they got rid of it. In that system, those who are wicked just die in a rain of fire that doesn't last any longer than any flesh mortal would survive in such a dire sitch. They are damned for all eternity in that they stay dead and gone forever; god "opposes their reanimation" to borrow a phrase from a recent poster. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat May 5 08:32:00 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 18:32:00 +1000 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 05/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > One would like the objective and the subjective evidence to match up, > > but if they don't, what basis is there for choosing one over the other? > > If your brain has been tampered with as expertly as you propose isn't > > it also possible that the objective evidence in the form of video tapes, > > other peoples' testimonials and so on, has also been tampered with? > > We are fast approaching the problem you describe in the courtroom. > These days, just how reliable can pictures (and soon videos) be? > The solution---advocated by David Brin, I believe---is that testimony > from real, live, 3D people must be provided, or at least via networks of > reliability. > > Believability then becomes a matter of Bayesian statistics, sort of like > it always has been :-) > > *Assuming* that right now your brain is not being tampered with, and > *assuming* that you are not living in a temporary simulation, then it > is possible to gingerly reach out and begin establishing reliability > footholds. We do it in science all the time, for example, say, in > gathering > astronomical data. And so did they who first dared to try to quantify > "hot" and "cold" on a linear scale. > > They had to constantly go back and forth between the objective and > subjective, until things began falling into place, and they could begin > building instruments more reliable than their own senses. > > So it could turn out with brain science. We now postulate that we > are conscious, and that the higher animals are also, presumably, > conscious, but not quite at the human level. Already comparisons > between subjective accounts and objective brain scans are made > by researchers. And so forth. You can't escape subjectivity so easily when the subject *is* subjectivity. When I say I want to survive into the future, what I mean is that I want my subjectivity to survive. I don't really care what the objective facts are except insofar as they affect my subjective experience. If there is some precise neurological correlate of consciousness then that's good, because it means if I have my brain rewired I can be reassured that everything will continue as before. However, it would be OK with me if my subjectivity continued the same as before despite flouting all the known objective correlates of consciousness and personal identity. This begs the question, how could I possibly know that I have survived if I lack any objective evidence that I have survived? And if I can't know does that mean it would be pointless wanting to be resurrected in the far future, or in Heaven, because I simply couldn't be sure that I was me? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pgptag at gmail.com Sat May 5 11:28:57 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 13:28:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0d1501c78e6d$d3c15230$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <470a3c520705050428r2912178cm8e2651e1a27db4b8@mail.gmail.com> Hi Torstein, Too bad I had initially missed this thread. Yours is a very interesting project, and I agree with your text quoted below. Memetically engineering an alternative to religion was one of the themes of the seminar on Transhumanism and Religion in Second Life a few days ago: http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/seminar_on_h_and_religion_in_sl/ See also: http://qyxxql-merlin.livejournal.com/2776.html and a couple of parallel threads on wta-talk. I plan to give a much expanded version of my talk at TransVision07. So - how do you plan to proceed with your project, and how can we help? G. On 5/4/07, Torstein Haldorsen wrote: > What I'm suggesting is that we try to create a rational, modular, and > dynamic open worldview that may be adopted on an individual level as an > ALTERNATIVE to the existing "religions", or to non-religious atheism for > that matter... I think it is possible to harness and amplify the positive features of existing religions without resorting to fairytales. > > > This may preserve and cultivate the positive aspects we find in existing > religions, for instance the deep sense of meaning, a deep > sense of belonging, and the communal aspects of religion, > while at the same time concentrating our factual knowledge of the world, and > trying to approximate the truths of life to the best level of accuracy > possible. I suggest that we try to create an ever-improving open source > alternative to the existing worldviews and put it on the "religious > marketplace". > > If it were to prove memetically fit for survival it could, over time diffuse > or be adopted by a portion of the global population, > for instance rational atheists and others who currently do not subscribe to > any existing organized worldview. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat May 5 11:05:12 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 07:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: <0d7201c78ebf$1a654290$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <1813998.71771178314218461.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <0d7201c78ebf$1a654290$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <42448.72.236.102.67.1178363112.squirrel@main.nc.us> > > > I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I told my story, how it > affects me, and I was just *wondering* how alone I was. Yes, > for all I knew (or know) it is a strictly generational thing; on the > other hand, perhaps diversity as Anne said. Frequently I find animations and moving flashing bits of stuff to be distracting. Many times they seem to add *nothing* to my comprehension of material. In fact, I've used my hand to cover some flashing thing onscreen while I read text. That said, huge paragraphs of plain text can get very old as well. I can easily drown in the words. > >> Why do people well versed in neurology and psychology not >> understand people learn through different perceptions? Not >> all people learn best through text. > A great deal has to do with *what* people are trying to learn, in my experience. I recall daughter trying to learn some handwork and the confusion that I saw as she tried to follow the instructions - both text and pictures were bewildering - almost incomprehensible. But when my daughter could sit *next to* her grandmother and mimic her hand movements that worked pretty well. Once she knew how, the text and pictures were *fine*! :))) I do not know how well an animation would have worked, because of the "mirror movement" reversal. Regards, MB From neptune at superlink.net Sat May 5 13:15:32 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 09:15:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] POL: DHEA ban References: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <002301c78f17$76b8f0c0$e0893cd1@pavilion> On Friday, May 04, 2007 8:50 AM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: > On 5/4/07, Technotranscendence wrote: > > This is what the Life Extension Foundation wants its US members to send > > to the US Congress. > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > ___________________________________________________ > > I am writing to urge you to vote AGAINST any legislation that would > > restrict my free access to a dietary supplement called > > dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). > > > > > > Wikipedia and Skeptic's dictionary don't think much of DHEA. > > > > Quote: > In short, taking DHEA is a high-risk gamble based on insubstantial evidence. > The main voices in favor of DHEA as a miracle drug are those who are > selling it or who make a good living selling books or programs > advocating "natural cures." I'm not sure LEF is touting DHEA (or any other substance) as a "miracle drug." Also, what is wrong with people taking the risk on DHEA? They certainly take risks on things that have the potential to do far more harm? As a general question to you: Do you see any scope for free choice at all in life? Or does it all come down to whatever the politicians tell you is okay? Regards, Dan From jef at jefallbright.net Sat May 5 14:57:14 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 07:57:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bandwidth of Information Gleaning In-Reply-To: <933485.94237.qm@web56510.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <933485.94237.qm@web56510.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Anne Corwin wrote: > Jef said: > > "For example, my thinking is extremely visual/analytical (I actually think > in terms of graphs and geometric shapes) > > My thinking is...difficult to describe. It is strongly visually biased, but > I'm also prone to synesthesia, so there's some degree of sensory mixing in > there as well. Graphs and shapes and diagrams definitely feature > prominently, though -- frequently, even writing for me is a process of > "looking" at the diagrams in my mind's eye and attempting to describe them > as best as possible. My brain seems to operate in "layers", wherein the > most basic cognitive layer is largely non-linguistic. The layer on top of > that is quasi-linguistic -- that is, there are a lot of words there, but > they don't necessarily represent anything. > > Then the layer on top of *that* is linguistic -- when I am writing, I am > basically "pulling" concepts up from the basic cognitive layer through the > quasi-linguistic layer and fashioning them into something with some chance > of being understood by someone who isn't me. And the linguistic layer is > very text-biased as opposed to speech-biased; text gets "in" and "out" more > easily than speech does. But the right diagram or graph has the potential > to bypass the linguistic layer(s) entirely. Which is always nice. I had hoped for enhanced visual communication in Second Life when I joined more than two years ago. I imagined being able to pop up visuals over my head to let the other person know what I was visualizing in my mind. Most would be prepared in advance, for common concepts that are difficult to describe in words. Some would be created dynamically, from changing data on the web (such as economic, socio-political, quality of life data, etc.), and other graphs and charts could be created on the fly from particular instance data. Animations to show change, 3D models for added dimensionality. I also dreamed of having a shared whiteboard to pop up whenever it might be handy. Still dreams at this time, and experiments to be performed to determine whether such visuals would be of much value to those who are less visual thinkers. Would a more kinesthetic person benefit from walking around inside a graph, climbing or flying over towering bars or walking on a surface plot as if it were a trampoline? Further on the topic of visualization, when I'm in a discussion with someone I find that a part of my brain automatically plots a graph of their worldview (that I'm receiving from them) onto my worldview (internal.) To the extent that our views are congruent, the graph forms a straight line. Any discontinuities or curves in the graph prompt me to look in that area for contradictions or differences in our views. Very handy and effortless, but perhaps quite unusual. I'd be very interested to know of others' similar experiences. - Jef From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 5 15:50:28 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 08:50:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs References: <22424063.73271178315262253.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> <0d7801c78ec0$816ba910$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <463C17E3.4080208@ramonsky.com> Message-ID: <0da801c78f2d$acf9f0b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Alex writes > Hi Lee, > I believe you may be misjudging awareness here... > I spend most of my life dealing with the mental problems > of such kids as are spoken of below [and their parents]. Alex is referring to BillK's narrative: > > I can only speak for the UK, but the constant use of swearing in their > > [teenagers'] normal conversation is very prevalent. You only need to > > walk around the mall, or listen on public transport, whenever a group > > get together. They don't think of it as swearing, it is just normal for > > them. When they get angry, and want to swear, they run into problems > > communicating their displeasure because they haven't got any > > 'forbidden' words left to use. So violence is the easy way of > > expressing anger. > Having it in your face all the time can get a bit much > even when you think you're making a difference. > When it does, I go online and have a laugh with > friends. It charges my batteries to face another > round of reality. > I realise it could look entirely facile to those who > don't know me, Not at all. It's very believable and (probably, given my own limitations) very wise. > and I'm familiar with the exasperation when people > seem to laugh an issue off that seems to me of great > importance. But the joy of humor is one of the parts > of being human that gives some people strength... Oh, I have *utterly* no problem with humor of any kind. But to illustrate the problem, let me turn to racial or ethnic humor. Yes: Axiom 1 is that humor gets a pass regardless, except when done in the presence of those who are its target, in which case it is rude. But what about when racist jokes indicate an *acceptance* of certain attitudes or beliefs on the part of the jokesters? Well, we all pretty much agree here that there is then a REAL PROBLEM quite apart from the humor, and the humor can be presented as evidence of this separate problem. What we definitely want to avoid is allowing our humor (say about you-name-it) to blind us to our prejudices, or, in the present instance, cause there to be within us a failure to be intolerable towards that which is unacceptable. > ...So let's hear it for the giggles...and the rap... Right there, of course, is where you're losing me. Axiom 0 is: there is no accounting for taste. It immediately follows that efforts on the part of someone to suggest that there is *real* value in Mendelssohn or Dvorak, and that those who can't see it are closing their eyes, or aren't "cool" are not only deeply misguided, but actually quite harmful. Are you speaking of making fun of rap, by parody? I don't think so! > and the serious stuff that the things we enjoy > keep us balanced enough to face. > Best, > AR Thanks Alex---but is there any danger here of some people using their own appreciation of rap to mask the kind of problems that BillK is addressing, all the way down to (see below) the replacement of standard written English with a sort of pidgen? Either one thinks that these *are* serious problems, or one does not. Lee -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Lee Corbin wrote: > > Yes, yes, yes, have a good laugh! Laugh and the world laughs with you. > Laughter is the best medicine. > > It also helps you avoid *real* problems, making it conveniently unnecessary > to ignore reports like BillK's where he wrote on 5/3, 9:34 AM > > > I can only speak for the UK, but the constant use of swearing in their > > [teenagers'] normal conversation is very prevalent. You only need to > > walk around the mall, or listen on public transport, whenever a group > > get together. They don't think of it as swearing, it is just normal for > > them. When they get angry, and want to swear, they run into problems > > communicating their displeasure because they haven't got any > > 'forbidden' words left to use. So violence is the easy way of > > expressing anger. > > Tut tut, BillK, you just gotta learn to laugh! Moreover, let Randall > clue you into some really great Rap, and soon you can be singin' > and dancin' away at just how da whores oughtta be cut up and fucked. > (I, certainly, dare not replace the latter with "------", after all, to > avoid shocking certain sensitive types.) > > Lee > > > Look at the stuff they post in chat rooms, on MySpace, or text > > messages. It is almost constant, never-ending profanity and explicit > > sexual references. (All with spelling mistakes as they use 'text' > > language and a sort of pidgin English). From benboc at lineone.net Sat May 5 15:43:16 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 16:43:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> "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. Two reasons i can think of: 1) Ignorance of tanshumanism. Maybe they think of transhumanism as something separate from the means to achieve a posthuman state. A lot of bizzarre-sounding ideas go under the banner of transhumanism. 2) Distancing themselves from the above-mentioned bizarre ideas, while still being able to talk about the future consequences. When these academics talk about posthumans, do they see them as existing in some remote future, or in the next 20 years? Oh, i just thought of another one: 3) It's just a game. To these people, 'posthuman' is like 'postmodern'. the last thing they want is to think it actually means something real. Any of those sound plausible? ben zaiboc From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sat May 5 16:02:44 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 09:02:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes On 05/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > *Assuming* that right now your brain is not being tampered with, and > > *assuming* that you are not living in a temporary simulation, then it > > is possible to gingerly reach out and begin establishing reliability > > footholds. We do it in science all the time, for example, say, in gathering > > astronomical data. And so did they who first dared to try to quantify > > "hot" and "cold" on a linear scale. > > > > They had to constantly go back and forth between the objective and > > subjective, until things began falling into place, and they could begin > > building instruments more reliable than their own senses. > > > > So it could turn out with brain science. We now postulate that we > > are conscious, and that the higher animals are also, presumably, > > conscious, but not quite at the human level. Already comparisons > > between subjective accounts and objective brain scans are made > > by researchers. And so forth. > > You can't escape subjectivity so easily when the subject *is* subjectivity. > When I say I want to survive into the future, what I mean is that I want > my subjectivity to survive. I understand, and I agree. Though even here peculiar paradoxes await. Let's say you would find immortality sufficient, provided also that it was subjectively great beyond your wildest dreams, and it even included a vast community of somewhat like-minded individuals. Would y'all then be satisfied by the following? In 2061 an AI ruling Earth has extremely recently discovered certain astounding things, such as how using quantum effects to produce infinitely many computations over a finite interval of time. Now, how to deal with all the troglotyte humans? Well, maybe some of them will agree to this: Y'all will be down loaded into one grain of sand on a shore in Siciliy, and during the first second, you will subjectively experience one second of your great life. During the next half second you will experience you will experience the next second, during the next quarter second, the third second, so that at the end, objectively, of two seconds the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem insofar as regards y'all. Or do you want more? Do you want *objectively* to be around at all times and places in the future? > I don't really care what the objective facts are except insofar as > they affect my subjective experience. [Even given the above?] > If there is some precise neurological correlate of consciousness > then that's good, because it means if I have my brain rewired > I can be reassured that everything will continue as before. Yes, that's the important criterion, at least to me. > However, it would be OK with me if my subjectivity continued > the same as before despite flouting all the known objective correlates > of consciousness and personal identity. This begs the question, how > could I possibly know that I have survived if I lack any objective > evidence that I have survived? And if I can't know does that mean > it would be pointless wanting to be resurrected in the far future, > or in Heaven, because I simply couldn't be sure that I was me? I agree. So I assume that the objective correlates we get will be our best working guess, and I'll go with them. Even right now, no one knows for sure if even cryonics works, but it still remains true that the second stupidest thing that you can do is to die and be frozen. Lee From pharos at gmail.com Sat May 5 16:29:49 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 17:29:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] POL: DHEA ban In-Reply-To: <002301c78f17$76b8f0c0$e0893cd1@pavilion> References: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> <002301c78f17$76b8f0c0$e0893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 5/5/07, Technotranscendence wrote: > As a general question to you: Do you see any scope for free choice at > all in life? Or does it all come down to whatever the politicians tell > you is okay? > The general principle I follow is that society should help the weaker members of society. The ramifications of that, of course, leads to much complication. And I don't want to discuss all the differing political systems which might try to achieve this objective. :) In the specific case of buying drugs OTC, many people do not have the knowledge, experience, ability, time or inclination to investigate every product that might be offered. Even with the present regulatory system, the drug fraud industry is still huge. Billions of dollars are involved. For many endeavours, including drug testing, it is more efficient to have it done by a central organization. I don't agree with the view sometimes proposed in the more extreme libertarian circles that the weaker members of society deserve to get ripped off by the sharper crooks and con-men. (i.e. The attitude that it's their own fault if they are not as clever as me). Everybody is weak in some areas and relies on legislation to protect them in some of their dealings. It is certainly frustrating if a general law for the protection of the clueless forbids you doing something that you are very confident that you can do perfectly safely. (Over-confidence is a very human failing, of course. :) ). But if you are that sharp, you can probably find a way round the law without too much trouble. ;) BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Sat May 5 16:33:56 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 11:33:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070505112321.0429cd68@pop-server.austin.rr.com> At 10:43 AM 5/5/2007, you wrote: >"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. > >Two reasons i can think of: > >1) Ignorance of tanshumanism. Maybe they think of transhumanism as >something separate from the means to achieve a posthuman state. A lot of >bizzarre-sounding ideas go under the banner of transhumanism. Yes, this may be true to a degree. Although the ideas of transhumanism are not bizarre to anyone who thinks about the future outside academic and "futurist" business models. These domains are stiff and often rigid, no matter how much they assume they are thinking about the future. From first hand experience, academics are still in the postmodernism world and business folks are stuck in Future Studies which lacks knowledge about evolutionary ideas in can and will affect humanity. >2) Distancing themselves from the above-mentioned bizarre ideas, while >still being able to talk about the future consequences. Yes. >When these academics talk about posthumans, do they see them as existing >in some remote future, or in the next 20 years? Within a considered "assumable" future 50 years. But they are not multi-tracking for the most part and are hedging their bets with the domains that are tangible to them. There is fluent thinking in cybernetics, social change, philosophy, emergent technologies, but the framing of these areas are within staying "human" but being posthuman through machines and transference of identity or mind agents into other realities. There is concern about Hans Moravec, but almost as a joystick because Moravec is such a sweetheart and well liked that his ideas are not really truly taken seriously for the enormous potential they have in affecting the human. So, the assumptive thinking is that machines will not become more intelligent than humans and science fiction is okay to battle if one can be a liberal humanist and literary provocateur by using all sorts of big words and references, which is essential for academic writing (although some transhumanist have gotten away with not doing this.) >Oh, i just thought of another one: >3) It's just a game. To these people, 'posthuman' is like 'postmodern'. >the last thing they want is to think it actually means something real. Haha. Could be, but I think that Hayles is very well-versed in her area of knowledge, but could be true. Natasha Natasha Vita-More PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium Transhumanist Arts & Culture Extropy Institute If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat May 5 16:38:35 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 18:38:35 +0200 Subject: [ExI] POL: DHEA ban In-Reply-To: References: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> <002301c78f17$76b8f0c0$e0893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <20070505163835.GJ17691@leitl.org> On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 05:29:49PM +0100, BillK wrote: > The general principle I follow is that society should help the weaker > members of society. That's good -- as long as that doesn't mean limiting choices to the rest of us. > In the specific case of buying drugs OTC, many people do not have the > knowledge, experience, ability, time or inclination to investigate > every product that might be offered. Even with the present regulatory Then these people should consult an expert. I'm perfectly capable of consulting primary literature and assessing the risk when incorporating a particular drug. > system, the drug fraud industry is still huge. Billions of dollars are How is that relevant? > involved. For many endeavours, including drug testing, it is more How is that relevant? > efficient to have it done by a central organization. "Centralized" and "efficient" don't mix very well. > I don't agree with the view sometimes proposed in the more extreme > libertarian circles that the weaker members of society deserve to get > ripped off by the sharper crooks and con-men. (i.e. The attitude that How would a "weaker member" of society know or care about DHEA, and why should "protection" of said "weaker members" result in limiting of choice to the rest of us? I do not subscribe to that logic, I must admit. > it's their own fault if they are not as clever as me). Everybody is > weak in some areas and relies on legislation to protect them in some > of their dealings. Protection of a group doesn't mean restriction of choice for another. > It is certainly frustrating if a general law for the protection of the > clueless forbids you doing something that you are very confident that > you can do perfectly safely. (Over-confidence is a very human failing, Now you're talking. > of course. :) ). But if you are that sharp, you can probably find a > way round the law without too much trouble. ;) No. The more sensible approach is that law shouldn't be there in the first place. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat May 5 17:15:55 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 12:15:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> At 04:43 PM 5/5/2007 +0100, ben zaiboc wrote: >Oh, i just thought of another one: >3) It's just a game. To these people, 'posthuman' is like 'postmodern'. >the last thing they want is to think it actually means something real. My guess is that this is closest to the real dynamic. "Post-" has been the cool prefix for more than 30 years. Postmodern, poststructural, postfeminist... (Although the latter has a negative flavor in the academy.) As one of those who quite early adopted "transhuman" from Sir Julian Huxley, I find it interesting on reflection that I'm also a theorist of "transrealism," an extension of Rudy Rucker's approach to imaginative writing. (It's true that before I published an academic book about transrealism, I also did one on postmodern science fiction and an encyclopaedia entry on that topic, so I don't wish to give the impression that they're mutually exclusive.) I suspect if European philosophes had adopted "transmodern" as their sexy word, Hayles and the others in that club would now be happily discussing "transhumans" rather than "posthumans". Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 5 17:41:07 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 10:41:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] POL: DHEA ban In-Reply-To: References: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> <002301c78f17$76b8f0c0$e0893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <35F4FF4A-F939-4466-A98E-3F7029F01B78@mac.com> On May 5, 2007, at 9:29 AM, BillK wrote: > On 5/5/07, Technotranscendence wrote: > >> As a general question to you: Do you see any scope for free >> choice at >> all in life? Or does it all come down to whatever the politicians >> tell >> you is okay? >> > > > The general principle I follow is that society should help the weaker > members of society. > What does that, poor as that principle imho is, have to do with DHEA. DHEA is chemically a precursor to testosterone and estrogen type hormones. Supplementing it gets converted to these hormones as appropriate. The general dose taken is pretty low. It has been taken by many people for very many years so it is extremely doubtful there are any substantial risks. I take and have taken a very small amount of DHEA for over a decade. It definitely helped and was easier on my system experientially and financial than the subscription alternatives. Having made an informed choice and talked to my doctor about it I do not believe that a non-entity like "society" has any business butting in. If the above "principle" means that everyone is to be forced to live in such a way that the "weaker members" are safe then no thank you. I am not such a member myself and I refuse to be forced to live as if I am. It is the same "principle" as boring bright kids out of their mind in school because the "weaker" minds must be catered to. - samantha From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat May 5 19:14:23 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 20:14:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705051214t3ad122carb32ded7e7835dc97@mail.gmail.com> On 5/4/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > You obviously believe that the truth is better than falsehood and you're > probably right. However, it is at least logically possible that widespread > belief in a Noble Lie might have a net positive effect. In that case, is it > still better to destroy the Lie regardless of the consequences? > This would be a conflict between utilitarian morality and ethical constraints. My answer would be that I am ethically probihited from lying even if I think it will have positive utility; but I am not ethically prohibited from keeping my mouth shut and refraining from comment either way, so that is what I would do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat May 5 19:23:33 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 20:23:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Evidence Message-ID: <8d71341e0705051223p616040c1g9959d5b32208bd4d@mail.gmail.com> On 5/5/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > We are fast approaching the problem you describe in the courtroom. > These days, just how reliable can pictures (and soon videos) be? > The solution---advocated by David Brin, I believe---is that testimony > from real, live, 3D people must be provided, or at least via networks of > reliability. > Indeed this has come up before, back in the 80s or thereabouts when computers were first coming into widespread use, the question was raised whether computer printouts could be accepted as evidence, because suddenly everyone had the necessary tools to generate any printed text they wanted. The solution put forward was that a printout can be accepted as evidence if a witness testifies that the information it contains is genuine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sat May 5 20:00:04 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 13:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <0d7201c78ebf$1a654290$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A while back I suggested that someone NEEDS to make a pro-Transhumanism, pro-Singularity fictional (hollywood quality) movie in order to help spread the memes to the masses who are less reading-inclined. I was a little disappointed that there apparently wasn't much interest in getting something started (Except by maybe one or two people possibly). But I still think this would be a great, highly-leveraged opportunity to do some real, tangible good. Now personally, I pretty much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no better than average. But if *no-one* else, is interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the result could be pretty abysmal. Would someone else here *please* consider taking up the reigns entirely, or at least collaborating if they don't want to do it by themselves? Heartland, might you be interested,(I recall that you replied to the original post)? SINCERELY and with Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sjatkins at mac.com Sat May 5 20:59:30 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 13:59:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705051214t3ad122carb32ded7e7835dc97@mail.gmail.com> References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <8d71341e0705051214t3ad122carb32ded7e7835dc97@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463CF032.8080002@mac.com> Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/4/07, *Stathis Papaioannou* > wrote: > > > You obviously believe that the truth is better than falsehood and > you're probably right. However, it is at least logically possible > that widespread belief in a Noble Lie might have a net positive > effect. In that case, is it still better to destroy the Lie > regardless of the consequences? > > Truth is not better than falsehood as a free floating abstraction. Truth is better than falsehood if you want to accomplish anything much in reality, rather than in fantasy. It is doubtful that most "Noble Lies" are at all noble. I do not believe that religion or religious beliefs are truly noble Noble Lies. > This would be a conflict between utilitarian morality and ethical > constraints. My answer would be that I am ethically probihited from > lying even if I think it will have positive utility; but I am not > ethically prohibited from keeping my mouth shut and refraining from > comment either way, so that is what I would do. When would you lie? Presumably you would lie to protect your own life, the lives of those you love or humanity. So what are the extenuations on your ethical prohibition against lying? - samantha From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat May 5 21:14:28 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 22:14:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <463CF032.8080002@mac.com> References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <8d71341e0705051214t3ad122carb32ded7e7835dc97@mail.gmail.com> <463CF032.8080002@mac.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705051414q7c4ff32dl346278ce0aafd7df@mail.gmail.com> On 5/5/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > When would you lie? Presumably you would lie to protect your own life, > the lives of those you love or humanity. So what are the > extenuations on your ethical prohibition against lying? > *shrug* It hasn't been put to the test yet - most of the time telling the truth is the right thing to do in all ways, after all. At a guess, I'd say it's when the harm to be averted by lying is sufficiently direct and immediate to, in the colloquial sense of the words, constitute "fact rather than just theory"; from a utilitarian viewpoint, one could look at it as "is this definite enough that the usual fallibility argument for ethics doesn't apply"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat May 5 21:19:44 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 22:19:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <0d7201c78ebf$1a654290$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705051419x34134ca7waac5fb9e21fd47ee@mail.gmail.com> On 5/5/07, A B wrote: > > > A while back I suggested that someone NEEDS to make a > pro-Transhumanism, pro-Singularity fictional > (hollywood quality) movie in order to help spread the > memes to the masses who are less reading-inclined. I > was a little disappointed that there apparently wasn't > much interest in getting something started (Except by > maybe one or two people possibly). But I still think > this would be a great, highly-leveraged opportunity to > do some real, tangible good. Now personally, I pretty > much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no > better than average. But if *no-one* else, is > interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a > free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the > result could be pretty abysmal. Would someone else > here *please* consider taking up the reigns entirely, > or at least collaborating if they don't want to do it > by themselves? Heartland, might you be interested,(I > recall that you replied to the original post)? > Sounds like a fine idea to me. I don't have any knowledge of or connections in the industry to get the movie made, nor enough spare time to do any large chunks of writing alas, but I'd be happy to look at early drafts and provide feedback if you want. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkdelong at pobox.com Sat May 5 21:46:31 2007 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 17:46:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <0d7201c78ebf$1a654290$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Why not just exploit what already exists and find a good fictional author like an Ian Mcdonald or a Cory Doctorow and then work to get their movie rights bought and push for the budget to be made available. On 5/5/07, A B wrote: > > > A while back I suggested that someone NEEDS to make a > pro-Transhumanism, pro-Singularity fictional > (hollywood quality) movie in order to help spread the > memes to the masses who are less reading-inclined. I > was a little disappointed that there apparently wasn't > much interest in getting something started (Except by > maybe one or two people possibly). But I still think > this would be a great, highly-leveraged opportunity to > do some real, tangible good. Now personally, I pretty > much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no > better than average. But if *no-one* else, is > interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a > free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the > result could be pretty abysmal. Would someone else > here *please* consider taking up the reigns entirely, > or at least collaborating if they don't want to do it > by themselves? Heartland, might you be interested,(I > recall that you replied to the original post)? > > SINCERELY and with Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat May 5 21:49:58 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 14:49:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! References: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004901c78f5f$53977b50$6501a8c0@brainiac> From: "A B" To: "ExI chat list" Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:00 PM Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! > > A while back I suggested that someone NEEDS to make a pro-Transhumanism, > pro-Singularity fictional (hollywood quality) movie in order to help > spread the memes to the masses who are less reading-inclined.... I think Damien Broderick's / Barbara Lamar's novel serialized in Cosmos would make a SUPER movie (and Post Mortal Syndrome's plot is more dynamic than A.I.'s - the Spielberg movie of a few years ago). http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/fiction/online/serials/post_mortal_syndrome So, who knows Steven Spielberg? Hmmm? Olga From bkdelong at pobox.com Sat May 5 22:08:42 2007 From: bkdelong at pobox.com (B.K. DeLong) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <004901c78f5f$53977b50$6501a8c0@brainiac> References: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <004901c78f5f$53977b50$6501a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: There are several other Sci-Fi / Drama directors who are just as good as Spielberg. Lets not make it too unaccessible - plus he picks what he does. Maybe a project to look at all the current H+ movies, the directors that made them and approach them about doing one? On 5/5/07, Olga Bourlin wrote: > > From: "A B" > To: "ExI chat list" > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:00 PM > Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! > > > > A while back I suggested that someone NEEDS to make a pro-Transhumanism, > > pro-Singularity fictional (hollywood quality) movie in order to help > > spread the memes to the masses who are less reading-inclined.... > > I think Damien Broderick's / Barbara Lamar's novel serialized in Cosmos > would make a SUPER movie (and Post Mortal Syndrome's plot is more dynamic > than A.I.'s - the Spielberg movie of a few years ago). > > http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/fiction/online/serials/post_mortal_syndrome > > So, who knows Steven Spielberg? Hmmm? > > Olga > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- B.K. DeLong (K3GRN) bkdelong at pobox.com +1.617.797.8471 http://www.wkdelong.org Son. http://www.ianetsec.com Work. http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer. http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service. http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play. PGP Fingerprint: 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE FOAF: http://foaf.brain-stream.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jef at jefallbright.net Sat May 5 22:33:50 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 15:33:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705051414q7c4ff32dl346278ce0aafd7df@mail.gmail.com> References: <200705040433.l444X0DK010177@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <8d71341e0705051214t3ad122carb32ded7e7835dc97@mail.gmail.com> <463CF032.8080002@mac.com> <8d71341e0705051414q7c4ff32dl346278ce0aafd7df@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/5/07, Russell Wallace wrote: > On 5/5/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > When would you lie? Presumably you would lie to protect your own life, > > the lives of those you love or humanity. So what are the > > extenuations on your ethical prohibition against lying? > > > > *shrug* It hasn't been put to the test yet - most of the time telling the > truth is the right thing to do in all ways, after all. At a guess, I'd say > it's when the harm to be averted by lying is sufficiently direct and > immediate to, in the colloquial sense of the words, constitute "fact rather > than just theory"; from a utilitarian viewpoint, one could look at it as "is > this definite enough that the usual fallibility argument for ethics doesn't > apply"? We teach our kids that telling the truth is good, and lying is bad. Because that's how much depth and subtlety they can grasp. When will we as a society be ready to grow up a little and realize it was never about speaking the truth and lying -- it was about the deeper principle of cooperative advantage, and the deeper principle behind that of the adaptive advantage of synergistic, positive-sum configurations? And the deeper principle... Never mind. We're not ready. - Jef From fauxever at sprynet.com Sat May 5 22:38:04 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 15:38:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! References: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com><004901c78f5f$53977b50$6501a8c0@brainiac> Message-ID: <001801c78f66$0c03a4b0$6501a8c0@brainiac> From: B.K. DeLong To: ExI chat list Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 3:08 PM > There are several other Sci-Fi / Drama directors who are just as good as Spielberg. Lets not make it too unaccessible - plus he picks what he does. Maybe a project to look at all the current H+ movies, the directors that made them and approach them about doing one? I was been a tad unserious. But, seriously, any good keen director will do. Let's just get those movies OUT THERE! It would be *serious* entertainment, to boot ... Olga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sat May 5 22:47:38 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 15:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49596.22686.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I like this idea. And don't laugh (okay, laugh if you want to) but after seeing the musical episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" I was thinking how cool it would be to have some sort of H+ themed musical. You know how show tunes tend to stick in people's heads? We could have lyrics like: "Some years ago they froze me They vitrified my head Most people laughed and mocked them, saying, "Why preserve the dead?" But now I stand before the world With body made anew And gaze about in wonderment At what this world's come through Through war and existential threat Through peril deep and dark And yet I live, a child once more Aloft on some strange ark. Some say it happened much too fast: An exponential function But others (those who rode the curve) Look back without compunction. I wander through the shining streets With eyes of diamond staring So much has changed: I don't know what to call that thing you're wearing! But still, some things remain the same: Like friendship, love, and heroism, And arguments on mailing lists On freedom and determinism." ...or maybe not. OK, back to working on some more, um, serious writing... - Anne A B wrote: A while back I suggested that someone NEEDS to make a pro-Transhumanism, pro-Singularity fictional (hollywood quality) movie in order to help spread the memes to the masses who are less reading-inclined. I was a little disappointed that there apparently wasn't much interest in getting something started (Except by maybe one or two people possibly). But I still think this would be a great, highly-leveraged opportunity to do some real, tangible good. Now personally, I pretty much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no better than average. But if *no-one* else, is interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the result could be pretty abysmal. Would someone else here *please* consider taking up the reigns entirely, or at least collaborating if they don't want to do it by themselves? Heartland, might you be interested,(I recall that you replied to the original post)? SINCERELY and with Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From russell.wallace at gmail.com Sat May 5 23:02:32 2007 From: russell.wallace at gmail.com (Russell Wallace) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 00:02:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <49596.22686.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <49596.22686.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8d71341e0705051602k25090b64t7a5b9a08071a5ec6@mail.gmail.com> On 5/5/07, Anne Corwin wrote: > > But still, some things remain the same: > Like friendship, love, and heroism, > And arguments on mailing lists > On freedom and determinism." > *laughs* I like it! Nice one. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Sat May 5 23:19:03 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Josh Cowan) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 19:19:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <49596.22686.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <49596.22686.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Anne, I think that was GREAT!! Kudos! On May 5, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Anne Corwin wrote: > I like this idea.? And don't laugh (okay, laugh if you want to) but > after seeing the musical episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" I was > thinking how cool it would be to have some sort of H+ themed musical.? > You know how show tunes tend to stick in people's heads?? We could > have lyrics like: > > "Some years ago they froze me > They vitrified my head > Most people laughed and mocked them, > saying, "Why preserve the dead?" > > But now I stand before the world > With body made anew > And gaze about in wonderment > At what this world's come through > > Through war and existential threat > Through peril deep and dark > And yet I live, a child once more > Aloft on some strange ark. > > Some say it happened much too fast: > An exponential function > But others (those who rode the curve) > Look back without compunction. > > I wander through the shining streets > With eyes of diamond staring > So much has changed: I don't know what > to call that thing you're wearing! > > But still, some things remain the same: > Like friendship, love, and heroism, > And arguments on mailing lists > On freedom and determinism." > > ...or maybe not.? OK, back to working on some more, um, serious > writing... > > - Anne > > A B wrote: >> A while back I suggested that someone NEEDS to make a >> pro-Transhumanism, pro-Singularity fictional >> (hollywood quality) movie in order to help spread the >> memes to the masses who are less reading-inclined. I >> was a little disappointed that there apparently wasn't >> much interest in getting something started (Except by >> maybe one or two people possibly). But I still think >> this would be a great, highly-leveraged opportunity to >> do some real, tangible good. Now personally, I pretty >> much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no >> better than average. But if *no-one* else, is >> interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a >> free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the >> result could be pretty abysmal. Would someone else >> here *please* consider taking up the reigns entirely, >> or at least collaborating if they don't want to do it >> by themselves? Heartland, might you be interested,(I >> recall that you replied to the original post)? >> >> SINCERELY and with Best Wishes, >> >> Jeffrey Herrlich >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" > - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" > > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? > Check out new cars at Yahoo! > Autos._______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3101 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amara at kurzweilai.net Sat May 5 23:11:43 2007 From: amara at kurzweilai.net (Amara D. Angelica) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 19:11:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <0d7201c78ebf$1a654290$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02bd01c78f6a$bf192530$650fa8c0@HP> Ray Kurzweil is producing a docudrama version of The Singularity Is Near, due for theatrical release in early 2008. Stay tuned for further details... From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Sat May 5 23:21:13 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 16:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <8d71341e0705051602k25090b64t7a5b9a08071a5ec6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <733897.72041.qm@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Weird...my message hasn't shown up in my own inbox yet, and yet you seem to have received it anyway. I'm not on some sort of moderation, am I? (Not that I don't necessarily deserve it for that bit of doggerel...) - Anne Russell Wallace wrote: On 5/5/07, Anne Corwin wrote: But still, some things remain the same: Like friendship, love, and heroism, And arguments on mailing lists On freedom and determinism." *laughs* I like it! Nice one. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 5 23:39:18 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 16:39:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <49596.22686.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200705052357.l45NvE0g000060@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne Corwin Subject: Re: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! ...? We could have lyrics like: "Some years ago they froze me They vitrified my head Most people laughed and mocked them, saying, "Why preserve the dead?"... - Anne Woohoo! Anne! Thou hast hidden thy talent under a bushel. {8^D Thanks for this, made my day. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sat May 5 23:46:16 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 16:46:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] calling computer groksters In-Reply-To: <463CF032.8080002@mac.com> Message-ID: <200705052357.l45NvpBd013652@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Please some of you computing cluemeisters, do offer me one on this: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/quantum-leap http://www.dwavesys.com/ Are we really about to get quantum computing? And if so will it allow us to fulfill our wildest dreams, such as discovering the next fifty Mersenne primes in a week? And world peace of course. spike From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 6 00:02:27 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 17:02:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <733897.72041.qm@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200705060015.l460FrrG015188@andromeda.ziaspace.com> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anne Corwin Subject: Re: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! Weird...my message hasn't shown up in my own inbox yet, and yet you seem to have received it anyway.? I'm not on some sort of moderation, am I?? (Not that I don't necessarily deserve it for that bit of doggerel...) - Anne Anne, this is a quirk you will start to see often. It resulted from that quantum computer that is being developed. It computes faster than light, causing things to happen in reverse order. We not only received your poem before you did, we received it before you wrote it. Your great grandson, spike {8^D From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 6 01:09:29 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 20:09:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <0d7201c78ebf$1a654290$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070505200228.04c1fd90@pop-server.austin.rr.com> When I was in the film industry working with Zoetrope and Fox, and making videos, I really wanted to make a transhumanist film. That was in the 80s. I pitched ideas to Schl?ndorff , Malle and Bertolucci, and dear Paul Kohner; but they weren't interested in the future. Times have certainly changed. But If anyone has a story you want me to look at, I do have the contacts. It does not matter that I am hibernating in Austin and working on a PhD, I still have friends and supporters in the film industry. Best wishes, Natasha At 03:00 PM 5/5/2007, you wrote: > A while back I suggested that someone NEEDS to make a >pro-Transhumanism, pro-Singularity fictional >(hollywood quality) movie in order to help spread the >memes to the masses who are less reading-inclined. I >was a little disappointed that there apparently wasn't >much interest in getting something started (Except by >maybe one or two people possibly). But I still think >this would be a great, highly-leveraged opportunity to >do some real, tangible good. Now personally, I pretty >much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no >better than average. But if *no-one* else, is >interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a >free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the >result could be pretty abysmal. Would someone else >here *please* consider taking up the reigns entirely, >or at least collaborating if they don't want to do it >by themselves? Heartland, might you be interested,(I >recall that you replied to the original post)? > >SINCERELY and with Best Wishes, > >Jeffrey Herrlich > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Natasha Vita-More Cultural Strategist - Designer - Futurist Proactionary Principle Core Group: Extropy Institute Member, Association of Professional Futurists Founder, Transhumanist Arts & Culture If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun May 6 03:18:06 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 13:18:06 +1000 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 06/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: In 2061 an AI ruling Earth has extremely recently discovered certain > astounding things, such as how using quantum effects to produce > infinitely many computations over a finite interval of time. Now, how > to deal with all the troglotyte humans? Well, maybe some of them > will agree to this: Y'all will be down loaded into one grain of sand > on a shore in Siciliy, and during the first second, you will subjectively > experience one second of your great life. During the next half second > you will experience you will experience the next second, during the > next quarter second, the third second, so that at the end, objectively, > of two seconds the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem > insofar as regards y'all. > > Or do you want more? Do you want *objectively* to be around > at all times and places in the future? > Subjective immortality is acceptable. Your example raises another interesting issue in that the computation method proposed will allow all possible computations to be implemented in the two seconds. Not only will you be resurrected to live forever, so will every other possible variation on your mind, and every other possible mind. This obviates the problem of being certain that you are really you: the real you has to be in there somewhere, as well as versions of you arbitrarily close to the real you. Another consequence is that if you find yourself a conscious entity in this infinite computer, you can be sure that your past memories and future expectations will have corollaries in actual computations either in the past or in the future (not necessarily respectively). We could be living in such a world at the moment and not be aware of it. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pj at pj-manney.com Sun May 6 04:20:02 2007 From: pj at pj-manney.com (pjmanney) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 00:20:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! Message-ID: <13389336.125981178425202394.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Anne C. wrote: >"But still, some things remain the same: Like friendship, love, and heroism, And arguments on mailing lists On freedom and determinism."< This is hilarious! (Although I secretly hope we're still not doing the last two lines.) Come on, I know there are some tunesmiths among us. Anyone want to come up with a melody and sing it at/record it for Transvision 07? PJ From spike66 at comcast.net Sun May 6 05:03:23 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 22:03:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] FW: We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! Message-ID: <200705060513.l465DdBn016786@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Posted for Amara Angelica: -----Original Message----- From: Amara D. Angelica [mailto:amara at kurzweilai.net] Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 7:12 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! Ray Kurzweil is producing a docudrama version of The Singularity Is Near, due for theatrical release in early 2008. Stay tuned for further details... From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 6 05:52:22 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 22:52:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <463D6D16.2040600@mac.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 06/05/07, *Lee Corbin* > wrote: > > In 2061 an AI ruling Earth has extremely recently discovered certain > astounding things, such as how using quantum effects to produce > infinitely many computations over a finite interval of time. Now, how > to deal with all the troglotyte humans? Well, maybe some of them > will agree to this: Y'all will be down loaded into one grain of sand > on a shore in Siciliy, and during the first second, you will > subjectively > experience one second of your great life. During the next half second > you will experience you will experience the next second, during the > next quarter second, the third second, so that at the end, > objectively, > of two seconds the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem > insofar as regards y'all. > > Or do you want more? Do you want *objectively* to be around > at all times and places in the future? > > > Subjective immortality is acceptable. Your example raises another > interesting issue in that the computation method proposed will allow > all possible computations to be implemented in the two seconds. Sheesh. Didn't this sort of thing go out with Zeno's paradox? You can't cram infinite subjective time and and infinite number of experiences of infinite time into two seconds. We don't do that kind of magic around here. Stathis wrote: Not only will you be resurrected to live forever, so will every other possible variation on your mind, and every other possible mind. samantha Whatever for? In this fantasy of infinitely fast and infinitely abundant computational resources for playing a googleplex of variations of every mundane humane life and every posiible extension of it is there any meaning, any substance? Or has anything real become just one more possible permutation in the quantum foam? Everything literally and literally nothing at all. Bah. Stathis: This obviates the problem of being certain that you are really you: the real you has to be in there somewhere, as well as versions of you arbitrarily close to the real you. hehehehehe. How very comforting. Not. Stathis: Another consequence is that if you find yourself a conscious entity in this infinite computer, you can be sure that your past memories and future expectations will have corollaries in actual computations either in the past or in the future (not necessarily respectively). We could be living in such a world at the moment and not be awar! e of it. Yes and I could be a bacteria on a boil on the butt of a rat in some other dimension. Yawn. - s From pgptag at gmail.com Sun May 6 06:13:59 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 08:13:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> I always had some doubts on "transhumanism" as a marketing buzzword, but I like "posthumanism" even less. The term implies a rejection of our humanity and a desire to become something else. What we want to become is clear to us: we want to remain more or less ourselves but move to much better bodies and much smarter minds. But for our opponents it is easy to construct "posthuman" as eliminating tender and loving humans and replacing them with cold and heartless machines. If and when I will be a computational superintelligence roaming the galactic web, I will still be a human in better shape and with some more toys to play with. G. On 5/5/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > At 04:43 PM 5/5/2007 +0100, ben zaiboc wrote: > > >Oh, i just thought of another one: > >3) It's just a game. To these people, 'posthuman' is like 'postmodern'. > >the last thing they want is to think it actually means something real. > > My guess is that this is closest to the real dynamic. "Post-" has > been the cool prefix for more than 30 years. Postmodern, > poststructural, postfeminist... (Although the latter has a negative > flavor in the academy.) As one of those who quite early adopted > "transhuman" from Sir Julian Huxley, I find it interesting on > reflection that I'm also a theorist of "transrealism," an extension > of Rudy Rucker's approach to imaginative writing. (It's true that > before I published an academic book about transrealism, I also did > one on postmodern science fiction and an encyclopaedia entry on that > topic, so I don't wish to give the impression that they're mutually > exclusive.) I suspect if European philosophes had adopted > "transmodern" as their sexy word, Hayles and the others in that club > would now be happily discussing "transhumans" rather than "posthumans". > > Damien Broderick > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 6 06:20:10 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 01:20:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Vinge in Reason magazine Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070506011957.022b9108@satx.rr.com> http://reason.com/news/show/119237.html From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 6 06:28:51 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 23:28:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463D75A3.9040801@pobox.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > If and when I will be a computational superintelligence roaming the > galactic web, I will still be a human in better shape and with some > more toys to play with. A million years from now, I'm going to remind you that you said that, and depending on how our senses of humor change over time, it will seem really funny or slightly sad. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 6 06:33:00 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 23:33:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> A B wrote: > Now personally, I pretty > much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no > better than average. But if *no-one* else, is > interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a > free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the > result could be pretty abysmal. You're correct, it will suck. And I'm too slow a writer, I've tried. You are essentially stuck until a writer comes along. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 6 06:41:11 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 01:41:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.co m> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070506012350.022de938@satx.rr.com> At 08:13 AM 5/6/2007 +0200, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: >I always had some doubts on "transhumanism" as a marketing buzzword, >but I like "posthumanism" even less. The term implies a rejection of >our humanity and a desire to become something else. True, but you do realize that the Foucauldian buzz word that overwhelmed pomo thinking was not just "posthumanist" but "antihumanist"? For all I know, it might still be the fashionable thing to be in the academe. (For anyone not sure what I just said, "Foucauldian" is the adjective from the ideas advanced by the late Michel Foucault, who blighted the minds of a couple of generations of very bright people indeed in the humanities, as did Louis Althusser, who ended by murdering his own wife. A bit more follows below, although, again, it's probably now out of touch with fashion.) Damien Broderick ========================= Twenty years after refusing on vaguely anarchist grounds to take out my Arts degree, I went back to university to brush up on whatever absurd doctrines had swept to power in the 1970s and 1980s. What I found in the libraries and seminars, as I wrote my doctoral dissertation in discourse theory, was a dazzling assemblage of brilliant nuance and narrow stupidity. It was built from a variety of components?deconstruction, new history, post-colonial writing, Lacanian psychoanalysis, women's studies, multiculturalism, antihumanism--but they shared certain core strategies. This free-wheeling post-Marxism liked to `interrogate' hegemonic beliefs, forgetting that interrogation is usually the privilege of terrorist regimes. Dubbing itself theory pure and simple, posthumanist opinion presented as the basis for all rigorous thought and practice. Yet its awful language could lead its practitioners into absurdity. All too often it was dead on the page and in the mind, and one could only wonder at the tone-deafness, the lack of rigour, of at least some of its acolytes. ... By and large, antihumanist theory seeks out `truth effects' produced by `author functions'. In lesser hands, theory has franchised a machine for processing splendour and misery into doctrine. Within this reigning academic doctrine, the human person has been unmasked as an ideological imposture. ... Kate Soper, in a useful and thorough-going response to the antihumanist program, makes the same point: "[U]nless individuals are to be credited with `naturally' possessing the capacities enabling them to recognize that which will constitute them as `subjects' (a position ruled out by Althusser's rejection of a humanist epistemology), then the subject is already presupposed to its formation, and Althusser's argument is circular. Subjects, he says, recognize themselves in ideology. But who does the recognizing if not the subject as conceived in humanism?" It is important, in my view, that we retain a clear acknowledgement that beneath all the powerful programming and intersocial construction of each human subjectivity in every culture, there is in some sort a `human nature' constrained by our evolutionary history which makes that process possible. At no time, even at birth, is the human infant correctly described, as Althusser does, as `this small animal?which only becomes human-sexual by crossing the infinite divide that separates life from humanity, the biological from the historical, "nature" from "culture" ' (Althusser, 1984). I am not arguing for a coarse `human engineering' postulate, but for a more nuanced use of the concept `human nature'. Victor Jeleniewski Seidler puts the objection to Althusserian global anti-essentialism well: "We can recognise the historical character of human qualities and needs and so recognise the competitive, individualistic, ego-centred `natures' that we grow up to accept as `normal', without concluding that `human nature' is simply a `product' of a particular mode of production. This would be to see people as passive objects, who are produced within a particular mode of production. It would be to share a misconception with much social theory which tends to deny, in different ways, the sources of resistance to the prevailing mode of determination and control, by assuming that people are `fitted' to a particular mode of production. This is to take up a fundamentally instrumental attitude towards people...." Posthumanist Marxism, as an interventionist political position, tends toward internal incoherence on this score. Post-Marxism tends toward the same failing. Consider Macdonell's odd account of the 1968 student/worker rebellion in France: "Instead of following the Marxist line that the masses make history, the [humanist-infiltrated] PCF line in 1968 was that the Party in the person of its leaders and `experts' makes history. Inflexible, underestimating the masses, the PCF acted to separate rather than weld together [oppositional] forces." Macdonell's account hangs on a simple internal contradiction, as follows: the party erred because (A) it wrongly supposed `leaders' rather than masses are responsible for making history, and (not-A) its `leaders' misled the masses. This logical inconsistency (it is not a `dialectical' insight) is bound to reappear within any antihumanist position. Indeed, pushed to its conclusion it vitiates the political will of both `leaders' and `masses'. Soper observes: "The real problem lies not in the assertion of the structured nature of experience, but in the conceptualisation of individuals as no more than social `effects'. For if we play no part in the formation of the structures that dominate us, what sense is there in trying to alter them? If, moreover, the experience of individual men and women is viewed as inessential to their existence, then the category of the `concrete individual' ceases to have any reference to human beings; within the confines of such a theory, one can no longer speak of individuals as `dominated' by social structures or in need of `liberation' from them, since they are not thought of as beings with `interests' to be affected." Oddly, Soper here blunts her own thrust. Finding Althusser's case weak on rhetorical grounds, she laments that `to convince workers of their impotence scarcely seems the best way of persuading them to participate in collective action'. Yet an obvious objection to Althusser is that to make any `appeal to the workers' requires one to recognise and depend upon their individual openness to persuasion, their need to be convinced (perhaps by actions as well as words). [etc] From stathisp at gmail.com Sun May 6 07:06:29 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 17:06:29 +1000 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <463D6D16.2040600@mac.com> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <463D6D16.2040600@mac.com> Message-ID: On 06/05/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > On 06/05/07, *Lee Corbin* > > wrote: > > > > In 2061 an AI ruling Earth has extremely recently discovered certain > > astounding things, such as how using quantum effects to produce > > infinitely many computations over a finite interval of time. Now, > how > > to deal with all the troglotyte humans? Well, maybe some of them > > will agree to this: Y'all will be down loaded into one grain of > sand > > on a shore in Siciliy, and during the first second, you will > > subjectively > > experience one second of your great life. During the next half > second > > you will experience you will experience the next second, during the > > next quarter second, the third second, so that at the end, > > objectively, > > of two seconds the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem > > insofar as regards y'all. > > > > Or do you want more? Do you want *objectively* to be around > > at all times and places in the future? > > > > > > Subjective immortality is acceptable. Your example raises another > > interesting issue in that the computation method proposed will allow > > all possible computations to be implemented in the two seconds. > > > Sheesh. Didn't this sort of thing go out with Zeno's paradox? You > can't cram infinite subjective time and and infinite number of > experiences of infinite time into two seconds. We don't do that kind > of magic around here. No, Zeno's paradox implies that motion is impossible due to this sort of mechanism (you have to move 1/2 metre before you move a metre, then another 1/4 metre, then another 1/8 metre... so you can never move the full metre), whereas you and I both know that motion is possible, which means you *can* fit an infinite number of time slices into a finite period. It isn't possible if there is a minimum quantum of time, which would mean that motion is not actually continuous but analogous to the frames of a film, but I don't know that this question has been decided with certainty one way or the other by physicists. Frank Tipler proposed that computation could go on forever using this mechanism in a (certain kind of) collapsing universe, while freeman Dyson proposed the exact opposite mechanism, slower and slower computation in an infinitely expanding universe. Either scenario allows for all possible computations, and of course either scenario may be impossible depending on what the real cosmology turns out to be. Stathis wrote: > Not only will you be resurrected to live forever, so will every other > possible variation on your mind, and every other possible mind. > > samantha > Whatever for? In this fantasy of infinitely fast and infinitely > abundant computational resources for playing a googleplex of variations > of every mundane humane life and every posiible extension of it is there > any meaning, any substance? Or has anything real become just one more > possible permutation in the quantum foam? Everything literally and > literally nothing at all. Bah. Any of the Tegmark multiverse levels would give rise to this situation. Would it upset you, for example, if it turns out to be the case that the universe is infinite, which would mean that every possible thing actually happens, infinitely often? Do you think that it is more likely that the universe is unique and finite? Stathis: > This obviates the problem of being certain that you are really you: the > real you has to be in there somewhere, as well as versions of you > arbitrarily close to the real you. > > hehehehehe. How very comforting. Not. This has to be the case if the universe is infinite or if the MWI of QM is true, to give two examples.These are not wild and unfounded speculation, like religious belief. There are good physical reasons supporting these scenarios, such as the theory that you don't cause something to exist by looking at it. Stathis: > Another consequence is that if you find yourself a conscious entity in > this infinite computer, you can be sure that your past memories and > future expectations will have corollaries in actual computations either > in the past or in the future (not necessarily respectively). We could be > living in such a world at the moment and not be awar! e of it. > > Yes and I could be a bacteria on a boil on the butt of a rat in some > other dimension. Yawn. I understand your scepticism, but it is irrational to ignore everything for which there is not direct and unequivocal evidence. For example, we have no evidence that an internal combustion engine would function properly in the Andromeda galaxy, but it is reasonable to suppose that it would. That the universe does not end where the visible universe ends is an analogously reasonable assumption, despite the present and perhaps perpetual absence of direct evidence in its support. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 6 07:58:01 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 09:58:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] calling computer groksters In-Reply-To: <200705052357.l45NvpBd013652@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <463CF032.8080002@mac.com> <200705052357.l45NvpBd013652@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <20070506075801.GO17691@leitl.org> On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 04:46:16PM -0700, spike wrote: > > Please some of you computing cluemeisters, do offer me one on this: > > http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/quantum-leap > > http://www.dwavesys.com/ > > Are we really about to get quantum computing? And if so will it allow us to > fulfill our wildest dreams, such as discovering the next fifty Mersenne > primes in a week? And world peace of course. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/ is a good place to get the dirt on quantum computing and quantum snake oil.. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Sun May 6 07:36:57 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> Message-ID: <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Why do any of us have to write an original screenplay if we really don't feel up to it? There are already so many great science fiction stories which I bet could be adapted to this cause (with permission of course). Also remember that *DAMIEN BRODERICK* and *CHARLES STROSS* are among us, and so we have just the people we need to help get the ball rolling. Best wishes, John Grigg : ) "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: A B wrote: > Now personally, I pretty > much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no > better than average. But if *no-one* else, is > interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a > free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the > result could be pretty abysmal. You're correct, it will suck. And I'm too slow a writer, I've tried. You are essentially stuck until a writer comes along. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 6 08:20:02 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 01:20:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463D8FB2.80104@mac.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I always had some doubts on "transhumanism" as a marketing buzzword, > but I like "posthumanism" even less. The term implies a rejection of > our humanity and a desire to become something else. > > What we want to become is clear to us: we want to remain more or less > ourselves but move to much better bodies and much smarter minds. But > for our opponents it is easy to construct "posthuman" as eliminating > tender and loving humans and replacing them with cold and heartless > machines. > > If and when I will be a computational superintelligence roaming the > galactic web, I will still be a human in better shape and with some > more toys to play with. > I don't see how you can say that with such apparent confidence. You most likely will not find a normal human body form at all useful for roaming the galactic web and will find it a hindrance for many tasks. You are likely to have understood you EP and reworked your psychology to be substantially more supporting of your activities which are distinctly quite different from what EP was bred by an for. So psychologically you are very unlikely to have much in common with humans. With a vastly increased intelligence including greatly increase concentration upon likely many tasks in parallel, perfect memory, vastly improved decision processes and access to huge fully integrated stores of information it is quite unlikely that you experience of reality including you experience of yourself will be at all what we think of as human. So exactly how will you still be a human? Is it just a matter of how you plan to chose to label whatever it is that you become? - samantha From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 6 08:30:31 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 01:30:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <463D9227.7010400@mac.com> Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > What we want to become is clear to us: we want to remain more or less > ourselves but move to much better bodies and much smarter minds. But > for our opponents it is easy to construct "posthuman" as eliminating > tender and loving humans and replacing them with cold and heartless > machines. > Do you think you can speak for all of us and what "we" want? I don't want to remain more or less myself in many respects. I want to grow and change and create the design that will replace slow evolution for creatures such as me. Humans are not altogether or even mainly tender and loving. Humans are wonderful in many respects but also horrid, weak, of limited intelligence, and governed in large part by unconscious processes. I for one desire to help overcome some of these limitations and make it possible for others to do the same. I have no need to retain the label "human" if it is defined as keeping many of these things. I think it would be very human to be hung up on this but that is not necessarily a good thing. Why would those who had gone beyond many human limitations and foibles be necessarily cold and heartless? This should be challenged. That is much more productive in my opinion than clinging to the label "human" in response. - samantha From pgptag at gmail.com Sun May 6 08:48:25 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 10:48:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <463D8FB2.80104@mac.com> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> <463D8FB2.80104@mac.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520705060148p5dd72dd9ne24cb62789bb8a71@mail.gmail.com> I agree on all that you say Samantha, and your "human = just a matter of how you plan to chose to label whatever it is that you become" is a valid point. But I could say the same of that toddler who was playing with blocks so many years ago. I am not him according to every objective criteria that I can think of, but I am him in some other very real sense. G. On 5/6/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > I always had some doubts on "transhumanism" as a marketing buzzword, > > but I like "posthumanism" even less. The term implies a rejection of > > our humanity and a desire to become something else. > > > > What we want to become is clear to us: we want to remain more or less > > ourselves but move to much better bodies and much smarter minds. But > > for our opponents it is easy to construct "posthuman" as eliminating > > tender and loving humans and replacing them with cold and heartless > > machines. > > > > If and when I will be a computational superintelligence roaming the > > galactic web, I will still be a human in better shape and with some > > more toys to play with. > > > I don't see how you can say that with such apparent confidence. You > most likely will not find a normal human body form at all useful for > roaming the galactic web and will find it a hindrance for many tasks. > You are likely to have understood you EP and reworked your psychology to > be substantially more supporting of your activities which are distinctly > quite different from what EP was bred by an for. So psychologically you > are very unlikely to have much in common with humans. With a vastly > increased intelligence including greatly increase concentration upon > likely many tasks in parallel, perfect memory, vastly improved decision > processes and access to huge fully integrated stores of information it > is quite unlikely that you experience of reality including you > experience of yourself will be at all what we think of as human. > > So exactly how will you still be a human? Is it just a matter of how > you plan to chose to label whatever it is that you become? > > - samantha > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Sun May 6 08:50:33 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 09:50:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Oz Big Dry In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070504131432.024b5680@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070504131432.024b5680@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/4/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > May 4, 2007 > Op-Ed Columnist, nytimes.com > The Aussie 'Big Dry' > By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN > SYDNEY, Australia > > Almost everywhere you travel these days, people > are talking about their weather ? and how it has > changed. Nowhere have I found this more true, > though, than in Australia, where "the big dry," a > six-year record drought, has parched the Aussie > breadbasket so severely that on April 19, Prime > Minister John Howard actually asked the whole > country to pray for rain. "I told people you have > to pray for rain," Mr. Howard remarked to me, > adding, "I said it without a hint of irony." > > > Politics gets interesting when it stops raining. > April 03 2007 at 01:41AM Sydney - Nature lovers are making their way to Australia's normally parched interior for what some believe is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Huge monsoon rains in the north-east of the continent have swollen streams into raging rivers that are now gushing over the salt flats of Lake Eyre in outback South Australia. (with pictures) APRIL 02, 2007 Desert lake springs to life By Dan Nolan in Lake Eyre, Australia Lake Eyre draws in water from one-sixth of the Australian continent A rare phenomenon underway in Australia's biggest and driest lake is part of a change in weather systems that scientists say could end the country's worst drought in 100 years. The water has traveled a long way too, taking two months to snake its way through a maze of rivers and creeks left parched by Australia's worst drought in 100 years. Scientists believe the changes may herald an end to Australia's record drought That rain came with the demise of El Nino, the dry weather system dreaded by Australian farmers. It occurs when the waters of the Pacific Ocean are cooler causing reduced evaporation and therefore less rain clouds in northern Australia. But climate scientists believe it may now be switching to a wetter system known as La Nina ? a system not seen in Australia since 2000, the year Lake Eyre last flooded. "It doesn't guarantee rain," says Professor Matthew England from the Climate Change Research Centre. "But generally speaking a year where there's a La Nina event we'll see higher rainfall to the north of Australia and we're seeing the start of those effects this year with northern Australia getting a lot of rainfall." ---------------------------------- BillK From pgptag at gmail.com Sun May 6 08:55:10 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 10:55:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <463D75A3.9040801@pobox.com> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> <463D75A3.9040801@pobox.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520705060155p64b22c75lb84a271c264bc3c1@mail.gmail.com> It's a date Eli! My future self will buy your future self some good design background radiation, Moet Chandon brand. And perhaps they will play at being us for a few cycles. G. On 5/6/07, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > > > > If and when I will be a computational superintelligence roaming the > > galactic web, I will still be a human in better shape and with some > > more toys to play with. > > A million years from now, I'm going to remind you that you said that, > and depending on how our senses of humor change over time, it will > seem really funny or slightly sad. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 6 08:57:50 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 01:57:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <463D6D16.2040600@mac.com> Message-ID: <463D988E.8090600@mac.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 06/05/07, *Samantha Atkins* > wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > On 06/05/07, *Lee Corbin* > > >> wrote: > > > > In 2061 an AI ruling Earth has extremely recently discovered > certain > > astounding things, such as how using quantum effects to produce > > infinitely many computations over a finite interval of time. > Now, how > > to deal with all the troglotyte humans? Well, maybe some of > them > > will agree to this: Y'all will be down loaded into one > grain of sand > > on a shore in Siciliy, and during the first second, you will > > subjectively > > experience one second of your great life. During the next > half second > > you will experience you will experience the next second, > during the > > next quarter second, the third second, so that at the end, > > objectively, > > of two seconds the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem > > insofar as regards y'all. > > > > Or do you want more? Do you want *objectively* to be around > > at all times and places in the future? > > > > > > Subjective immortality is acceptable. Your example raises another > > interesting issue in that the computation method proposed will allow > > all possible computations to be implemented in the two seconds. > > > Sheesh. Didn't this sort of thing go out with Zeno's paradox? You > can't cram infinite subjective time and and infinite number of > experiences of infinite time into two seconds. We don't do that kind > of magic around here. > > > No, Zeno's paradox implies that motion is impossible due to this sort > of mechanism (you have to move 1/2 metre before you move a metre, then > another 1/4 metre, then another 1/8 metre... so you can never move the > full metre), whereas you and I both know that motion is possible, > which means you *can* fit an infinite number of time slices into a > finite period. It isn't possible if there is a minimum quantum of time, There may well be a quanta of time. > which would mean that motion is not actually continuous but analogous > to the frames of a film, but I don't know that this question has been > decided with certainty one way or the other by physicists. Frank > Tipler proposed that computation could go on forever using this > mechanism in a (certain kind of) collapsing universe, while freeman > Dyson proposed the exact opposite mechanism, slower and slower > computation in an infinitely expanding universe. Either scenario > allows for all possible computations, and of course either scenario > may be impossible depending on what the real cosmology turns out to be. > I don't believe any scenario allows arbitrarily mixing orders of infinity. > > Stathis wrote: > Not only will you be resurrected to live forever, so will every other > possible variation on your mind, and every other possible mind. > > samantha > Whatever for? In this fantasy of infinitely fast and infinitely > abundant computational resources for playing a googleplex of > variations > of every mundane humane life and every posiible extension of it is > there > any meaning, any substance? Or has anything real become just one more > possible permutation in the quantum foam? Everything literally and > literally nothing at all. Bah. > > > Any of the Tegmark multiverse levels would give rise to this > situation. Would it upset you, for example, if it turns out to be the > case that the universe is infinite, which would mean that every > possible thing actually happens, infinitely often? Do you think that > it is more likely that the universe is unique and finite? > This is one of the reasons I have very little use for some of this thought and/or some of its interpretations. Again it seems to me that you are crossing up orders of infinity. I think you are engaging in a meaningless set of speculations. That there is a multiverse does not automatically presume that every possible variation of every being and event occurs somewhere/sometime within the multiverse. You can have a mulitverse of infinite diversity without all possible variations of any particular being or event occurring somewhere within it. > > Stathis: > This obviates the problem of being certain that you are really > you: the > real you has to be in there somewhere, as well as versions of you > arbitrarily close to the real you. > > hehehehehe. How very comforting. Not. > > > This has to be the case if the universe is infinite or if the MWI of > QM is true, to give two examples.These are not wild and unfounded > speculation, like religious belief. There are good physical reasons > supporting these scenarios, such as the theory that you don't cause > something to exist by looking at it. > No it doesn't have to be the case if the universe is infinite. If the universe is countably infinite then there is no way to map on to that infinite variations of everything within that infinity. Even if there an infinite number of such countably infinite universes there is no reason that any of them should be devoted to variations of any of the others. They could all be unique one to another. Speaking loosely recursive mapping of all conceivable variations seems to be what you are attempting to do. MWI has a various variants and interpretations only some of which claim that every possible variation of macro level things occurs. These speculations may be fun to entertain but I don't see how they have a lot of traction for getting ourselves where we would like to go. If you really believe what you are proposing then it is inevitable that you will become posthuman somewhere in your notion of the infinite multiverse so why worry or sweat it much? It can too easily become another pie in the sky in the sweet by and by. > Stathis: > Another consequence is that if you find yourself a conscious > entity in > this infinite computer, you can be sure that your past memories and > future expectations will have corollaries in actual computations > either > in the past or in the future (not necessarily respectively). We > could be > living in such a world at the moment and not be awar! e of it. > > Yes and I could be a bacteria on a boil on the butt of a rat in some > other dimension. Yawn. > > > I understand your scepticism, but it is irrational to ignore > everything for which there is not direct and unequivocal evidence. For > example, we have no evidence that an internal combustion engine would > function properly in the Andromeda galaxy, but it is reasonable to > suppose that it would. That the universe does not end where the > visible universe ends is an analogously reasonable assumption, despite > the present and perhaps perpetual absence of direct evidence in its > support. > It is highly questionable in my view to spend for now extremely limited time and productive years entertaining extreme hypothesis without evidence and with little or no predictive ability or explanatory power. I think you are more than bright enough to know that your internal combustion engine analogy does not have merit. And I said nothing at all about the universe ending where the visible universe ends (?). - samantha From ben at goertzel.org Sun May 6 09:27:54 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 05:27:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705060227x2572ab37s7dc81d1a106de084@mail.gmail.com> Unfortunately, I think the hardest part of getting a good H+ movie made would NOT be convincing a producer to take on a good H+ script (though that may be very hard), but rather keeping it from turning into something idiotic in the course of the movie-making process. The history of SF films is rather more dismal than the history of SF novels, I suppose because good SF is about ideas at least as much as human personalities and emotions; whereas mainstream film is almost entirely about human personalities and emotions and can barely deal with ideas at all. So, as I see it, the real key to getting an H+ film of any positive value (artistic, memetic, political or what have you) out there would be to find a producer, director and scriptwriter who ALL were sympathetic to the H+ set of ideas. If this happened, something really cool could come out of it, with potential to change peoples' minds as well as entertain them. But don't fool yourselves that simply putting the right script in the hands of a producer with money is gonna to it. Don't underestimate the degree to which the film industry can dumb down, and totally lose the point of, a great book or a great script (in SF, but not only in SF). We've all seen it happen time and time again. So if y'all are serious about this, the first step IMO would indeed by to find producers and/or directors who fundamentally "get it." Without that, it's not worth bothering. A distorted, confused, conceptually misleading H+ movie might still be popular, and might well leave the movement worse off than had it not been made. -- Ben G On 5/6/07, John Grigg wrote: > > Why do any of us have to write an original screenplay if we really don't > feel up to it? There are already so many great science fiction stories > which I bet could be adapted to this cause (with permission of course). > Also remember that *DAMIEN BRODERICK* and *CHARLES STROSS* are among us, and > so we have just the people we need to help get the ball rolling. > > Best wishes, > > John Grigg : ) > > *"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" * wrote: > > A B wrote: > > Now personally, I pretty > > much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no > > better than average. But if *no-one* else, is > > interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a > > free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the > > result could be pretty abysmal. > > You're correct, it will suck. And I'm too slow a writer, I've tried. > You are essentially stuck until a writer comes along. > > -- > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ > Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > ------------------------------ > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast > with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at comcast.net Sun May 6 11:23:16 2007 From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 05:23:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <463D9227.7010400@mac.com> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> <463D9227.7010400@mac.com> Message-ID: <463DBAA4.3060703@comcast.net> Samantha, I'm really in your camp with what you are saying here. This is all great! So what is your favorite term for what you want to become? (And I I hope others will more precisely specify what their favorite terms are.) Is it Transhuman, Posthuman, or something else? I think I'm still liking just the term Extropian. I'm enjoying what I am now. I'm infinitely thankful for all my ancestors did to freely create me, and for giving me way more than any of them had. I'm working to preserve everything I have been, (just keeping the bad primitive stuff as a memory of what I've been, and enhancing all the good stuff) and looking forward to so much more of everything at an ever accelerating and more exciting pace. And I'm hopping some day I can pay all my ancestors back for creating me by resurrecting them (including pre humans who are so deserving since they had so much less to work with, but still made things better). Extropian, to me, just means more of all good (including perfect memory of the bad), no matter what or where it all came from. Oh, and I don't like it when Giu1i0 talks about his future "computational superintelligence" because this apparently does not include the real phenomenal properties of consciousness, like red, green, warm.... Abstract (the type of representation is irrelevant) computation doesn't have that, and that very real phenomenal stuff we represent our knowledge and computation with is more important than anything! We should never talk about giving phenomenal (or spiritual if you will) stuff up. At least that is my POV. Upward, Brent Samantha Atkins wrote: > Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > >> What we want to become is clear to us: we want to remain more or less >> ourselves but move to much better bodies and much smarter minds. But >> for our opponents it is easy to construct "posthuman" as eliminating >> tender and loving humans and replacing them with cold and heartless >> machines. >> >> > > Do you think you can speak for all of us and what "we" want? I don't > want to remain more or less myself in many respects. I want to grow and > change and create the design that will replace slow evolution for > creatures such as me. Humans are not altogether or even mainly tender > and loving. Humans are wonderful in many respects but also horrid, > weak, of limited intelligence, and governed in large part by unconscious > processes. I for one desire to help overcome some of these > limitations and make it possible for others to do the same. I have no > need to retain the label "human" if it is defined as keeping many of > these things. I think it would be very human to be hung up on this but > that is not necessarily a good thing. > > Why would those who had gone beyond many human limitations and foibles > be necessarily cold and heartless? This should be challenged. That is > much more productive in my opinion than clinging to the label "human" in > response. > > - samantha > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 6 11:55:08 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 13:55:08 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <463DBAA4.3060703@comcast.net> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> <463D9227.7010400@mac.com> <463DBAA4.3060703@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20070506115508.GS17691@leitl.org> On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 05:23:16AM -0600, Brent Allsop wrote: > (And I I hope others will more precisely specify what their favorite > terms are.) The meaning of them, rather. Too many damn terms with too damn little meaning clinging to them are making the rounds. > Is it Transhuman, Posthuman, or something else? I don't see a particular distinction between posthuman or transhuman. It's still all plain old postbiology. (Human enhancement, if at all possible, is only a fleeting phase of development). If you want to define a transhuman as a slightly enhanced human, then I would consider it just a passing phase, as a kind of adolescence. > I think I'm still liking just the term Extropian. I'm enjoying what I > am now. I'm infinitely thankful for all my ancestors did to freely A baby very much enjoys being that, but eventually it will grow and become an adult. When I grow up, I want to be a distributed system. > create me, and for giving me way more than any of them had. I'm working > to preserve everything I have been, (just keeping the bad primitive > stuff as a memory of what I've been, and enhancing all the good stuff) > and looking forward to so much more of everything at an ever > accelerating and more exciting pace. And I'm hopping some day I can pay > all my ancestors back for creating me by resurrecting them (including > pre humans who are so deserving since they had so much less to work > with, but still made things better). Extropian, to me, just means more > of all good (including perfect memory of the bad), no matter what or > where it all came from. > > Oh, and I don't like it when Giu1i0 talks about his future > "computational superintelligence" because this apparently does not > include the real phenomenal properties of consciousness, like red, Why do you think it "apparently doesn't include" it? What is particularly real or unreal about neurons spiking in the space between your ears when you wrote that message? How do you know it's a meat brain between your ears, and not something else? Did you ever take a look? > green, warm.... Abstract (the type of representation is irrelevant) > computation doesn't have that, and that very real phenomenal stuff we If the type of representation is irrelevant, then you're just a computer made from meat. You can do no more of these fancy "real phenomenal stuff" as any other computer. So, how does it feel, being a zombie? > represent our knowledge and computation with is more important than > anything! We should never talk about giving phenomenal (or spiritual if > you will) stuff up. At least that is my POV. I don't know what spiritual really means (never had any of it), but if it floats your boat, sure. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From eugen at leitl.org Sun May 6 11:59:11 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 13:59:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <463D75A3.9040801@pobox.com> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> <463D75A3.9040801@pobox.com> Message-ID: <20070506115911.GT17691@leitl.org> On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 11:28:51PM -0700, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote: > A million years from now, I'm going to remind you that you said that, > and depending on how our senses of humor change over time, it will > seem really funny or slightly sad. Assuming, "funny" and "sad" are appropriate descriptors for something quite huge, and unhuman. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From stathisp at gmail.com Sun May 6 12:10:57 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 22:10:57 +1000 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <463D988E.8090600@mac.com> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <463D6D16.2040600@mac.com> <463D988E.8090600@mac.com> Message-ID: On 06/05/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > Any of the Tegmark multiverse levels would give rise to this > > situation. Would it upset you, for example, if it turns out to be the > > case that the universe is infinite, which would mean that every > > possible thing actually happens, infinitely often? Do you think that > > it is more likely that the universe is unique and finite? > > > This is one of the reasons I have very little use for some of this > thought and/or some of its interpretations. Again it seems to me that > you are crossing up orders of infinity. I think you are engaging in > a meaningless set of speculations. That there is a multiverse does > not automatically presume that every possible variation of every being > and event occurs somewhere/sometime within the multiverse. You can have > a mulitverse of infinite diversity without all possible variations of > any particular being or event occurring somewhere within it. If the universe is infinite and uniform, then I think that everything that can happen, does happen. By infinite I mean that there exists a countable infinity of any given finite volume of space. By uniform I mean that the physical laws remain uniform everywhere and that physical parameters such as density and temperature limit towards some universal mean in any sufficiently large volume, an assumption that most astronomers make about subsets of our own Hubble volume. Now, with the conditions described there is a non-zero probability, call it p, that any given physically possible event E will be found to occur in a given volume of space, and this probability is uniform over the infinite volumes of space available. So the probability that E does not occur within n volumes of space is (1-p)^n. You can see that as n-> infinity, (1-p)^n approaches zero, which means that for sufficiently large finite n, Pr(E) can be made arbitrarily close to 1. E could be something like "an arbitrarily close functional analogue of my brain at the present moment". The argument falls down if: 1) p=0, that is E is physically impossible, and the fact that I am conscious is a miracle; or 2) the universe is finite; or 3) the universe is not uniform, such that p decreases as some function of distance from my current position, even if it doesn't actually fall to zero (Note that these considerations apply even if there is a unique universe with a finite lifespan; adding infinite time or multiple universes produces new opportunities for the realisation of E.) If you really believe what you are proposing then it is inevitable that > you will become posthuman somewhere in your notion of the infinite > multiverse so why worry or sweat it much? It can too easily become > another pie in the sky in the sweet by and by. > Everything we do is perfectly determined by the laws of physics anyway, so why worry about anything? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From velvethum at hotmail.com Sun May 6 12:07:24 2007 From: velvethum at hotmail.com (Heartland) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 08:07:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! References: <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com><160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3cf171fe0705060227x2572ab37s7dc81d1a106de084@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ben Goertzel: > Unfortunately, I think the hardest part of getting a good H+ movie made > would NOT be convincing a producer to take on a good H+ script (though that > may be very hard), but rather keeping it from turning into something idiotic > in the course of the movie-making process. Right. Even if a script was good and you found someone to buy it, a studio would probably immediately ship it to its own writers to make it mainstream. By the 10th draft, your original H+ masterpiece full of great ideas might morph into a clich?-ridden B-movie designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator because, at the end of the day, people who fund these projects would care only about making money, not about promoting some philosophy people never heard about, so the producers would be reluctant to go for a story whose ideas/values might not reflect mainstream opinions, namely, a story that could only appeal to a very small audience. The studios might take more risks taking on controversial projects such as this if making, marketing and distributing movies wasn't so insanely expensive. Until that changes (and digital revolution might change that a bit in few years) or until H+ ideas become mainstream, I'm afraid we're stuck with SL0 Sci-Fi. Ben Goertzel: > So if y'all are serious about this, the first step IMO would indeed by to > find producers and/or directors who fundamentally "get it." Without that, > it's not worth bothering. Yes, it would probably take someone with Steven Spielberg or James Cameron's clout to get something like that made right now but these giants would still have to have a "perfect" script ready before committing to the project. Unless you know people like that and are an established writer or are a brilliant *and* successful writer already, I agree, don't bother. H. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sun May 6 14:24:17 2007 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 10:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ExI] [extropy-chat] new serial starts on-line: POST MORTAL SYNDROME In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415223601.02331a08@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415182921.021641b8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070415223601.02331a08@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <42958.72.236.103.18.1178461457.squirrel@main.nc.us> Damien, I'm enjoying this book! Thanks for posting it. :) I'm reminded of a late friend who was always badmouthing the medical profession and doctors. She sure ran to them quickly enough when she came down with cancer. But she tried every alternative she could find beforehand. Regards, MB From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 6 15:03:33 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 10:03:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oz Big Dry In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070504131432.024b5680@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070506095646.021b7d00@satx.rr.com> At 09:50 AM 5/6/2007 +0100, BillK quoth: >On 5/4/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > > Almost everywhere you travel these days, people > > are talking about their weather ? and how it has > > changed. Nowhere have I found this more true, > > though, than in Australia, where "the big dry," a > > six-year record drought, has parched the Aussie > > breadbasket > >APRIL 02, 2007 >Desert lake springs to life >By Dan Nolan in Lake Eyre, Australia > > >A rare phenomenon underway in Australia's biggest and driest lake is >part of a change in weather systems that scientists say could end the >country's worst drought in 100 years. > > >Scientists believe the changes may herald an end to Australia's record drought >That rain came with the demise of El Nino, the dry weather system >dreaded by Australian farmers. It occurs when the waters of the >Pacific Ocean are cooler causing reduced evaporation and therefore >less rain clouds in northern Australia. > >But climate scientists believe it may now be switching to a wetter >system known as La Nina ? a system not seen in Australia since 2000, >the year Lake Eyre last flooded. Yeah, such are the vagaries of climate. But having rain pissing down in the tropics and deserts of Oz doesn't automatically mean that "the breadbasket" is equally inundated, any more than copious rain in Mexico offers much relief to a drought in Canada. If your implication is that it's dodgy to link the recent unpleasantness with human-induced global warming rather than natural cycles, I agree, of course. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 6 15:17:33 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 10:17:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] new serial starts on-line: POST MORTAL SYNDROME In-Reply-To: <42958.72.236.103.18.1178461457.squirrel@main.nc.us> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070415182921.021641b8@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070415223601.02331a08@satx.rr.com> <42958.72.236.103.18.1178461457.squirrel@main.nc.us> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070506100549.021ba908@satx.rr.com> At 10:24 AM 5/6/2007 -0400, MB wrote: >Damien, > >I'm enjoying this book! Thanks for posting it. :) Well, thank you. I have to admit that Barbara and I now conclude we should have trimmed a lot more domestic chit-chat out of the opening chapters, because that slowed the thing down--which is okay in a novel you're reading on the train, but maybe not in daily portions. Now that we're at chapter 16, the story is coming together and the pace is speeding up. For a >H or extropian readership, a carefully not-too-shocking introduction might seem a bit boring. It's a trade-off. This is relevant to the discussion about a >H movie that tries to avoid slamming right into comic book extravaganza. It's a balancing act. Anyway, if anyone was put off following POST MORTAL SYNDROME by its conventional opening, I'd suggest going back and having a quick browse as the chapters continue to accumulate at the COSMOS site. I'd be interested in feedback--pro or con. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 6 16:10:35 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 09:10:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0b2001c78cd7$411019e0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0e3c01c78ff9$2469f160$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > On 06/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Though even here peculiar paradoxes await. > > Let's say you would find immortality sufficient, provided also that it > > was subjectively great beyond your wildest dreams, and it even included > > a vast community of somewhat like-minded individuals. Would y'all then > > be satisfied by the following? That was my real question. Of course, you may not want---probably wisely---to answer for "y'all", but I was interested in your answer for yourself. My point has to do with objectivity vs. subjectivity. On *just* the subjective view, what's wrong? You live forever, etc. But *objectively*, your share of the future is rather small, we might say. I then went on in order to clarify that concern: > > In 2061 an AI ruling Earth has extremely recently discovered certain > > astounding things, such as how using quantum effects to produce > > infinitely many computations over a finite interval of time. Now, how > > to deal with all the troglotyte humans? ....next quarter second, > > the third second, so that at the end, objectively, after two seconds > > the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem insofar as regards > > y'all. Or do you want more? Do you want *objectively* to be around > > at all times and places in the future? > > Subjective immortality is acceptable. Hmm? I didn't know that I was asking anything about morality :-) I really do want to know if---under this admittedly very wild hypothesis ---you would find the prospect of such a future alluring or depressing. And whichever answer, why so? Lee From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Sun May 6 15:43:43 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 08:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <854800.86505.qm@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, getting a great script turned into a great film is a whole other matter of incredible difficulty (generally). The overwhelming desire in Hollywood to make money and appeal to everyone can result in dumbing down smart scripts and changing plotlines which might disturb someone. I really thought "The First Immortal" would be turned into a movie by Hallmark Pictures but it never happened (they call it being in "development hell"). James Halperin's book turned into a motion picture or mini series would have been a terrific Transhumanistic primer for the public. One of my favorite films with a Transhumanist theme is "Lawnmower Man" but it shows Hollywood's tendency to portray artificially enhanced humans as prone toward insanity and not trustworthy. Michael Crichton's novel about rampant killer nanotech, "Prey," will be coming out as a big budget film over the next year or two. But this will not exactly aid the Transhumanist cause. Thanks Michael Crichton! lol I had hoped the Spielberg film "A.I." would be just what we wanted but it was more of a fairy tale in science fiction trappings. I did love the scene where we get a brief look at the alien looking Posthumans and their city. Perhaps a decade from now (or sooner depending on how fast the technology improves & goes down in $$$ price) a group of talented Transhumanist filmmakers could "go it alone" and make a movie for well under a million dollars, which in today's money would run thirty or forty million at the very minimum for a similar product. A film with actors shot almost totally in front of a blue screen (like "300" or "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow") could be the way to go. This motion picture does not have to necessarily be a visual blockbuster ala James Cameron but simply a financially humble treatise on the human condition and how Transhumanism can change things for the far better. The Spierig Brothers who did the amazing SF/Horror flick "Undead" are fantastic examples of a very small budget (half mil) going really really far due to terrific homegrown CGI work. The aliens in this film looked much better than most of the creatures I've seen on Star Trek or Babylon 5! lol Grant Walther, who was like a big brother to me during my formative years, went to CalArts and several other top American & Canadian film schools. He had people like Ed Harris and Tim Burton as classmates but though he came close on several occasions, he never did find fame and fortune (on one occasion an Italian director he was about to work for dropped dead of a heart attack right before shooting was to start). I've seen some of his student films and know he has a great deal of talent but even that alone in Hollywood does not always get one where they want to go. My friend has many war stories about his time in Tinseltown and he has a certain amount of bitterness. I've tried to encourage him to try the "Indy film route" but he insists that should one of his award winning scripts be made into a film, it must get the full Hollywood big budget treatment with *A* list stars. Grant has a pile of "glowing" rejection letters saying his script about a guy trying to survive while building the Alaska Pipeline (loosely autobiographical) is terrific but just not financially viable. Paul Newman among others actually wrote him that! I'd like to see my friend give it one last shot with a new project and so I thought of him as this thread got started. As the old saying goes, "where there's a will there's a way." If nothing constructive happens around here I just might make a little film for YouTube with Legos people! Really. Or if I feel more ambitious I can combine forces with a cabal of local amateur filmmakers in my area who were kind enough to take a real interest in me and are professional graphic artists. John Grigg Heartland wrote: Ben Goertzel: > Unfortunately, I think the hardest part of getting a good H+ movie made > would NOT be convincing a producer to take on a good H+ script (though that > may be very hard), but rather keeping it from turning into something idiotic > in the course of the movie-making process. Right. Even if a script was good and you found someone to buy it, a studio would probably immediately ship it to its own writers to make it mainstream. By the 10th draft, your original H+ masterpiece full of great ideas might morph into a clich?-ridden B-movie designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator because, at the end of the day, people who fund these projects would care only about making money, not about promoting some philosophy people never heard about, so the producers would be reluctant to go for a story whose ideas/values might not reflect mainstream opinions, namely, a story that could only appeal to a very small audience. The studios might take more risks taking on controversial projects such as this if making, marketing and distributing movies wasn't so insanely expensive. Until that changes (and digital revolution might change that a bit in few years) or until H+ ideas become mainstream, I'm afraid we're stuck with SL0 Sci-Fi. Ben Goertzel: > So if y'all are serious about this, the first step IMO would indeed by to > find producers and/or directors who fundamentally "get it." Without that, > it's not worth bothering. Yes, it would probably take someone with Steven Spielberg or James Cameron's clout to get something like that made right now but these giants would still have to have a "perfect" script ready before committing to the project. Unless you know people like that and are an established writer or are a brilliant *and* successful writer already, I agree, don't bother. H. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpwl at lightlink.com Sun May 6 16:03:29 2007 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 12:03:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <485186.66463.qm@web37404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <463DFC51.2060609@lightlink.com> Are you kidding? They will crucify you. The best money-making take on the idea of transhumanism is that what the transhumanists want to do is turn all humans into Borgs, or keep people in vats so they can feed off their essential juices (what was that garbage film again? Oh, yeah, The Matrix). Whatever script you come up with, whatever positive spin you put on the great transhumanist future, the movie that comes out of it will be the same. And besides, which version of the future are you going to portray? A few years back I started producing a story designed specifically to convey the idea that the singularity could (would inevitably) have a positive, beneficial outcome. If I had supreme exective power I could make it into a movie beneficial to the community, but, alas, they stopped selling tins of supreme executive power at my local supermarket, so I shelved the idea. Richard Loosemore. A B wrote: > A while back I suggested that someone NEEDS to make a > pro-Transhumanism, pro-Singularity fictional > (hollywood quality) movie in order to help spread the > memes to the masses who are less reading-inclined. I > was a little disappointed that there apparently wasn't > much interest in getting something started (Except by > maybe one or two people possibly). But I still think > this would be a great, highly-leveraged opportunity to > do some real, tangible good. Now personally, I pretty > much SUCK at writing fiction, I'd probably be no > better than average. But if *no-one* else, is > interested, I'm going to *attempt* to start writing a > free-of-charge screenplay. But without any help, the > result could be pretty abysmal. Would someone else > here *please* consider taking up the reigns entirely, > or at least collaborating if they don't want to do it > by themselves? Heartland, might you be interested,(I > recall that you replied to the original post)? > > SINCERELY and with Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich From hkhenson at rogers.com Sun May 6 16:50:51 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 12:50:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705060227x2572ab37s7dc81d1a106de084@mail.gmail.co m> References: <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070506110705.0451fa38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:27 AM 5/6/2007 -0400, Ben wrote: >Unfortunately, I think the hardest part of getting a good H+ movie made >would NOT be convincing a producer to take on a good H+ script (though >that may be very hard), but rather keeping it from turning into something >idiotic in the course of the movie-making process. > >The history of SF films is rather more dismal than the history of SF >novels, I suppose because good SF is about ideas at least as much as human >personalities and emotions; whereas mainstream film is almost entirely >about human personalities and emotions and can barely deal with ideas at all. > >So, as I see it, the real key to getting an H+ film of any positive value >(artistic, memetic, political or what have you) out there would be to find >a producer, director and scriptwriter who ALL were sympathetic to the H+ >set of ideas. If this happened, something really cool could come out of >it, with potential to change peoples' minds as well as entertain them. > >But don't fool yourselves that simply putting the right script in the >hands of a producer with money is gonna to it. Don't underestimate the >degree to which the film industry can dumb down, and totally lose the >point of, a great book or a great script (in SF, but not only in >SF). We've all seen it happen time and time again. > >So if y'all are serious about this, the first step IMO would indeed by to >find producers and/or directors who fundamentally "get it." Without that, >it's not worth bothering. > >A distorted, confused, conceptually misleading H+ movie might still be >popular, and might well leave the movement worse off than had it not been >made. I think Ben is exactly on target here. Consider Nano by John Robert Marlow. It seems to have been back written from a screen play and while it is ok for a Matrix type adventure it was so awful in other ways that I did something unusual and wrote a review of it: ******************* This book has a Vernor Vinge quote on the back cover and is about the coming technological Singularity (look it up using Google). And Vinge is right in what he says; the book will make a spectacular movie. But oh man is it painful to read. Not because of the story line. Even if a bit predictable it's ok for Matrix type violent adventure. The problem is the "science," or rather what is supposed to pass for science. Nanotechnology is not magic and most of my complaints are about gross violation of conservation of mass, thermodynamics, mass flows, doubling times and the like. But that's not all the places it will irritate you. On page 133 the good guys are trying to see who the bad guys are by analyzing a depleted uranium bullet. "We should have a signature on the uranium by the end of the day; from there we'll have the nation and reactor core of origin." I know what this story bit is imitating--Tom Clancy's "Sum of all Fears" where the origin of plutonium in a bomb is determined from impurities. But depleted uranium that's used for things like bullets never went near a reactor. It's "depleted" of the easy to fission isotope U235. This is the kind of error a knowledgeable editor should have caught. The scenes with nanotechnology devices are every bit as bad. Toward the end of the book he has nano disassemblers eating away at a seaport city. In a short time they have created a hole where massive amounts of seawater is pouring in. So where did a fair fraction of a cubic mile of dirt go? Early in the book the hero stops a car in seconds by growing a huge redwood tree in the middle of the street. Now, nanotechnology *can* grow redwoods a good deal faster than the natural way, but not *that* fast, not starting with a tenth of a cubic centimeter of nano machines. Eric Drexler makes a case for doubling in an energy- and material-rich environment of 20 minutes. Estimating a redwood at meter square by 100 meters tall, growing from a 0.1 cc is an expansion of a billion, 10 exp 9. Since 10 exp 3 is about 2 exp 10, we are talking 30 doublings, ten hours by Drexler's estimate. And you don't even want to think about Marlow's understanding of thermodynamics. Someone told him that heat is a problem when making nano things fast. So he "solves" it thus: "Thermal problems?" . . . . "If it becomes a problem you assemble water for evaporative cooling, then grab the atoms in the vapor and do it over again." *Sigh.* (Grabbing the vapor returns every bit of heat evaporation took away, and "assembling" water from atoms releases the searing heat of an oxy hydrogen flame.) I am reminded of the first "chemistry" teacher I had in high school. First day he told us that boiling water was a chemical reaction that broke up the water into hydrogen and oxygen which was called "steam." About half way into the first semester the FBI took him away. Fortunately for Mr. Marlow they don't do that for authors making such mistakes. The shame is that with some advice on science and engineering the story could have been written so that it didn't violate physical laws and been just as exciting. As Dr. Vinge says, it will make a spectacular movie. But if you know even a little about science or engineering reading the book will irritate the heck out of you. Keith Henson PS If you want an example of high adventure that does not violate physical laws try _The Revolution from Rosinante_ by Alexis A Gilliland. A bit dated (1981) but still it has an excellent treatment of computers that transcend humans and are starting to take care of humans the way humans take care of cats. Mr. Gilliland just gets science and engineering details *right.* *********************** You might want to read the other 19 customer reviews on Amazon. One of them contains: "Mainly accurate science - as a nanotechnology columnist the writer has a good overview of the field . . ." Incidentally, the Rosinante books include a subplot where an AI creates a religion specifically for humans who live in space and another AI becomes the main proselytizer for the religion. Some of you know I have been working on a post singularity novel. (An early draft of one chapter was serialized on sl4 and generated little or no comment.) A Hollywood screen writer proposed turning that chapter into a script. But instead of a poignant and ambiguous tale where the animals are left with Africa, the script writer wanted the female character to discover the medical clinics as an evil plot and lots of violence to destroy the AI clinics. There are worse things than no movies about H+ and the singularity. Keith From msd001 at gmail.com Sun May 6 17:11:26 2007 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 13:11:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Posthumanism vs. Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <470a3c520705060148p5dd72dd9ne24cb62789bb8a71@mail.gmail.com> References: <463CA614.6090000@lineone.net> <7.0.1.0.2.20070505120903.02546a40@satx.rr.com> <470a3c520705052313g542cbe5aj9327f3594dfefa33@mail.gmail.com> <463D8FB2.80104@mac.com> <470a3c520705060148p5dd72dd9ne24cb62789bb8a71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62c14240705061011w1af4dc97sdf4f522cedbe20bc@mail.gmail.com> On 5/6/07, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote: > I agree on all that you say Samantha, and your "human = just a matter > of how you plan to chose to label whatever it is that you become" is a > valid point. > But I could say the same of that toddler who was playing with blocks > so many years ago. I am not him according to every objective criteria > that I can think of, but I am him in some other very real sense. Won't the definition of "human" evolve with humans? I don't call people with bluetooth headsets and smartphones "cyborgs" - they're still human. How far beyond the mean does one have to be to get the exemption from humanity? On what dimension of measure? Physically you can be uploaded, does that remove your humanity by definition, or are the goals of your existance the measure of your humanity? I assumed this was what Giuli0 was talking about. Of course the lightspeed spread in all directions from humanity's seed point may cause the term to become almost meaninglessly general - but we'll address that as it happens. From sjatkins at mac.com Sun May 6 18:09:19 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 11:09:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <463D6D16.2040600@mac.com> <463D988E.8090600@mac.com> Message-ID: On May 6, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 06/05/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > > > Any of the Tegmark multiverse levels would give rise to this > > situation. Would it upset you, for example, if it turns out to be > the > > case that the universe is infinite, which would mean that every > > possible thing actually happens, infinitely often? Do you think that > > it is more likely that the universe is unique and finite? > > > This is one of the reasons I have very little use for some of this > thought and/or some of its interpretations. Again it seems to me > that > you are crossing up orders of infinity. I think you are > engaging in > a meaningless set of speculations. That there is a multiverse does > not automatically presume that every possible variation of every being > and event occurs somewhere/sometime within the multiverse. You can > have > a mulitverse of infinite diversity without all possible variations of > any particular being or event occurring somewhere within it. > > If the universe is infinite and uniform, then I think that > everything that can happen, does happen. By infinite I mean that > there exists a countable infinity of any given finite volume of > space. By uniform I mean that the physical laws remain uniform > everywhere and that physical parameters such as density and > temperature limit towards some universal mean in any sufficiently > large volume, an assumption that most astronomers make about > subsets of our own Hubble volume. Now, with the conditions > described there is a non-zero probability, call it p, that any > given physically possible event E will be found to occur in a given > volume of space, and this probability is uniform over the infinite > volumes of space available. So the probability that E does not > occur within n volumes of space is (1-p)^n. You can see that as n-> > infinity, (1-p)^n approaches zero, which means that for > sufficiently large finite n, Pr(E) can be made arbitrarily close to > 1. E could be something like "an arbitrarily close functional > analogue of my brain at the present moment". Not so fast. If the number, n(E), of possible things that can occur is much larger (much less a different order of infinity) than the number of places/states/chances it could occur in then your argument fails. - samantha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun May 6 18:37:43 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 19:37:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Oz Big Dry In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070506095646.021b7d00@satx.rr.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070504131432.024b5680@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070506095646.021b7d00@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/6/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > Yeah, such are the vagaries of climate. But > having rain pissing down in the tropics and > deserts of Oz doesn't automatically mean that > "the breadbasket" is equally inundated, any more > than copious rain in Mexico offers much relief to a drought in Canada. > > If your implication is that it's dodgy to link > the recent unpleasantness with human-induced > global warming rather than natural cycles, I agree, of course. > Who can tell? I thought it was good news that some people think the climate cycle might be changing to break the drought at last. I was also amazed at the wildlife wonderland that Lake Eyre turns into. Reminded me of the South Africa deserts that change overnight into a glorious carpet of wild flowers after the rains arrive. BillK From davidmc at gmail.com Sun May 6 18:43:15 2007 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 12:43:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070506110705.0451fa38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070506110705.0451fa38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: Jeffrey Skoll is a Hollywood producer that may be friendly to H+ ideas (coming from the high tech industry)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skoll From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 6 18:53:36 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 13:53:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! References: <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070506134637.021d46f8@satx.rr.com> At 12:50 PM 5/6/2007 -0400, Keith wrote: >This is the kind of error a knowledgeable editor should have caught. "a knowledgeable editor"! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! First, see if you can find one who (a) can read intelligently, (b) knows grammar, (c) has a paid job any longer. They exist, but don't expect to stumble upon such a miracle in New York, especially in relation to mass market "product". Even with the small presses, where such niceties have been known to persist, you find things like the bio information on the back jacket flap of a recent novel of mine written with Rory Barnes: "Both authors are both far more..." Damien Broderick From natasha at natasha.cc Sun May 6 18:54:33 2007 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 13:54:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quote: James D. Watson on extreme life extension and/or reversing aging Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20070506135105.02d82290@pop-server.austin.rr.com> Quick question: Does anyone have such a quote or reference for Dr. Watson? (In his usual matter of fact, or impatient yet engaging tone?) Many thanks, Natasha Natasha Vita-More If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun May 6 19:00:08 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 14:00:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Oz Big Dry In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070504131432.024b5680@satx.rr.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070506095646.021b7d00@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070506135433.021e7420@satx.rr.com> At 07:37 PM 5/6/2007 +0100, BillK wrote: >I thought it was good news that some people think the climate cycle >might be changing to break the drought at last. As far as I can tell, the good news is that the (Oz relevant) climate cycle *isn't* changing. The Nino/Nina thing is just doing its stochastic long cycle thing. But if the temperature is additionally going up teeny bit by teeny bit, all those classic cycles might end up badly munged. On the other hand, if it's really mostly solar-cycle driven (as the concurrent Martian global warming hints), warming might settle down in the decade or two without any ostentatious human intervention. But getting off the coal/oil junk would be a way smart move anyhow. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Sun May 6 20:13:23 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 13:13:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [MATH] Infinite Mappings References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><463D6D16.2040600@mac.com> <463D988E.8090600@mac.com> Message-ID: <0e5c01c7901b$758621f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Samantha writes > No it doesn't have to be the case if the universe is infinite. If the > universe is countably infinite then there is no way to map on to that > infinite variations of everything within that infinity. You *could* have what is known as a dense set of infinite variations, but probably you mean the uncountable set of possible variations. More specifically, "infinite variations of everything" would include all binary choices, e.g., assuming the number of spaces countable, then 1 for the first space, 0 for the second, 0 for the third, 1 for the fourth, and so on, in all possible arrangements, which *does* provide uncountably many possibilities, as you say. On the other hand (going back to a dense set), if our universe were to consist of volumes containing a certain string, 1, 0, 1, 1, ..., then there is a countable set of universes that come arbitrarily close to it. (For example, all of those which are identical to ours out to however many places you'd like to go, but from then on end in a string of 1's, or a string of 0's.) Therefore, for all practical purposes :-) if there are countably many parallel universes, then they might still be arranged to resemble ours however closely as is desired. For what it is worth, however, David Deutsch has opined that the cardinality of the Everett multiverse is the cardinality of the continuum, which is, of course, uncountable. Lee From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Sun May 6 20:23:26 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 13:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! In-Reply-To: <02bd01c78f6a$bf192530$650fa8c0@HP> Message-ID: <138010.73013.qm@web37403.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Alright, maybe now is not the time. Perhaps the Kurzweil docudrama Amara told us about will kickstart the appropriate atmosphere for something positive with quality within a couple years. But on its own, right now hollywood would probably just mangle it, like ya'll have said. Oh dear, another one bites the dust. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sentience at pobox.com Sun May 6 21:00:29 2007 From: sentience at pobox.com (Eliezer S. Yudkowsky) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 14:00:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [MATH] Infinite Mappings In-Reply-To: <0e5c01c7901b$758621f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><463D6D16.2040600@mac.com> <463D988E.8090600@mac.com> <0e5c01c7901b$758621f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <463E41ED.3030201@pobox.com> Lee Corbin wrote: > > For what it is worth, however, David Deutsch has opined that > the cardinality of the Everett multiverse is the cardinality of > the continuum, which is, of course, uncountable. How the devil did Deutsch arrive at *that* idea? That sounds really really bizarre. Are you sure this is Deutsch? -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence From Thomas at thomasoliver.net Sun May 6 17:52:27 2007 From: Thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 10:52:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] We Need a Movie, People!! Dammit! References: <13389336.125981178425202394.JavaMail.servlet@perfora> Message-ID: <463E15DB.3020600@thomasoliver.net> I've been trying to break my addition to this list and now you come up with this! Do you have a genre preference, Anne? I think it should rock hard. I think I have a songwriting collaboration agreement for around here somewhere if you're interested. -- Thomas (the songmaker) pjmanney wrote: >Anne C. wrote: > > >>"But still, some things remain the same: >> >> >Like friendship, love, and heroism, >And arguments on mailing lists >On freedom and determinism."< > >This is hilarious! (Although I secretly hope we're still not doing the last two lines.) Come on, I know there are some tunesmiths among us. Anyone want to come up with a melody and sing it at/record it for Transvision 07? > >PJ > > From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 7 01:53:23 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 11:53:23 +1000 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: <0e3c01c78ff9$2469f160$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0e3c01c78ff9$2469f160$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 07/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > Stathis writes > > > On 06/05/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > > > > Though even here peculiar paradoxes await. > > > Let's say you would find immortality sufficient, provided also that it > > > was subjectively great beyond your wildest dreams, and it even > included > > > a vast community of somewhat like-minded individuals. Would y'all > then > > > be satisfied by the following? > > That was my real question. Of course, you may not want---probably > wisely---to answer for "y'all", but I was interested in your answer > for yourself. > > My point has to do with objectivity vs. subjectivity. On *just* the > subjective view, what's wrong? You live forever, etc. But *objectively*, > your share of the future is rather small, we might say. > > I then went on in order to clarify that concern: > > > > In 2061 an AI ruling Earth has extremely recently discovered certain > > > astounding things, such as how using quantum effects to produce > > > infinitely many computations over a finite interval of time. Now, how > > > to deal with all the troglotyte humans? ....next quarter second, > > > the third second, so that at the end, objectively, after two seconds > > > the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem insofar as regards > > > y'all. Or do you want more? Do you want *objectively* to be around > > > at all times and places in the future? > > > > Subjective immortality is acceptable. > > Hmm? I didn't know that I was asking anything about morality :-) > > I really do want to know if---under this admittedly very wild hypothesis > ---you would find the prospect of such a future alluring or depressing. > And whichever answer, why so? > I don't even see it as an issue: I would be quite happy with the scenario you propose, and I would be unhappy with objectively living forever while subjectively living for only a limited time. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 7 02:41:31 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 19:41:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [MATH] Infinite Mappings References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><463D6D16.2040600@mac.com><463D988E.8090600@mac.com><0e5c01c7901b$758621f0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <463E41ED.3030201@pobox.com> Message-ID: <0e6d01c79051$5c390560$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Eliezer writes > Lee Corbin wrote: >> >> For what it is worth, however, David Deutsch has opined that >> the cardinality of the Everett multiverse is the cardinality of >> the continuum, which is, of course, uncountable. > > How the devil did Deutsch arrive at *that* idea? I don't know, but quantum fields can take on continuously many values at a point, and, furthermore, the time at which a certain quantum event (e.g. a disintegration) may occur at any of continuously many times between, say t0 and t1. (Deutsch did once mention in a post on Fabric of Reality that he does not know (or it is not known) whether the angle at which a photon comes away from an emission is discrete or continuous, though I may be misremebering that and it could have been "countably infinite" for one of those two ---but I doubt it. Merely aleph-zero of anything doesn't seem to accord with QFT.) > That sounds really really bizarre. Are you sure this is Deutsch? Yes. I've quoted page 211 many times, but maybe not here. On p. 211 of "The Fabric of Reality" Deutsch writes "Let us start by imagining some parallel universes stacked like a pack of cards...(which greatly understates the complexity of the multiverse)... Now let us alter the model to take account of the fact that the multiverse is not a discrete set of universes but a continuum, and that not all the universes are different. In fact, for each universe that is present there is also a continuum of identical universes present, comprising a certain tiny but non-zero proportion of the multiverse. In our model, this proportion may be represented by the thickness of a card, where each card now represents all the universes of a gven type. However, unlike the thickness of a card, the proportion of each type of universe changes with time under quantum-mechanical laws of motion. Consequently, the proportion of universes having a given property also changes, and it changes continuously. In the case of a discrete variable changing from 0 to 1, suppose that the variable has the value 0 in all universes before the change begins, and that after the change, it has the value 1 in all universes. During the change, the proportion of universes in which the value is 0 falls smoothly from 100 percent to zero." Lee From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 7 02:53:23 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 19:53:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0bb301c78d91$4f3cafa0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0cd301c78e48$01796170$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0e3c01c78ff9$2469f160$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <0e7b01c79053$74033100$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Stathis writes > [Lee wrote, referencing two posts] > > > the third second, so that at the end, objectively, after two seconds > > the Ruling AI has eliminated the resource problem insofar as regards > > y'all. Or do you want more? Do you want *objectively* to be around > > at all times and places in the future? ... > > I really do want to know if---under this admittedly very wild hypothesis > > ---you would find the prospect of such a future alluring or depressing. > > And whichever answer, why so? > > I don't even see it as an issue: I would be quite happy with the > scenario you propose, and I would be unhappy with objectively > living forever while subjectively living for only a limited time. Thanks for the answer. I too would choose being subjectively immortal (i.e. getting infinitely much runtime) over being objectively immortal if the latter encompassed only finitely much runtime. However---I still have a strong desire to have both. Maybe it's just an unconscious hope that staying alive forever objectively has the added advantage that I'll "keep up with the times" in a certain sense, and may obtain benefit from an eventual change in the possibilities or the rules. (For example, if eternity exists, and the ruling AIs give me 1 second after 1 trillion years, then 1 second after 10 trillion years, then another after 100 trillion years, and so on, even though I am effectively immortal, I'm a bit disappointed by the overall paucity of my per-diem. It also may be just sheer egotism: if there is going to be such a *great* party, why shouldn't I and everyone else I know of get to go too? Lee From sjatkins at mac.com Mon May 7 02:57:58 2007 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 19:57:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705041707.l44H7RaO023799@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200705041707.l44H7RaO023799@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <463E95B6.4040705@mac.com> Max More wrote: > A question for those, like spike, who found religion to be "an > extremely positive experience"--especially those of a Fundamentalist > belief system: Did you take seriously the idea of Hell as a place of > eternal torment and damnation? > I was never of a fundamentalist persuasion and eschewed the idea of hell by about age 11. But I seem to have some affinity for meditative and mystical states. Around the end of the Vietnam war I was wide open to the "conscious expansion is our only hope" memes so I dived into various mostly Eastern religious mystical systems. I recovered for some time and then went through another serious bout many years later. > In the period just before I shucked off my Christian beliefs in my > early-mid teens, I DID take the idea seriously. As a result, I found > the process of losing the religion highly distressing. For about a > year I kept thinking "What if I'm wrong?" followed by thoughts of > eternal, horrible misery. (It didn't help that my (half-)brother > assured me, one Christmas Day, that I would indeed go to Hell for > rejecting Jesus.) > > I couldn't manage to believe that God would torment people eternally for one life of not managing to belief "the right stuff" or for being as imperfect as the preachers insisted we were created or doomed to be from birth. It made no sense and did not square with what my budding mysticism led me too either. > That painful experience no doubt fed the following period of > aggressive, sometimes obnoxious, atheism. I'm curious how others felt > as they struggled out of those chains. > > When I first turned atheist at 13 it was difficult at first to wrap my head around a naturalist worldview. I first built it up as a hypothetical way of looking at things in my head. Then with it seemed self consistent I gradually moved in. At first it was very jarring. But it soon felt as if a tremendous amount of guilt, metaphysical dread and seeing God (or worse) behind every bush was removed. But it still felt pretty lonely and bereft of part of myself for a long time. - samantha From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 7 03:18:19 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 13:18:19 +1000 Subject: [ExI] What should survive and why? In-Reply-To: References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com> <0d8901c78ec3$4ecca5b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <0da901c78f2f$13f47050$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <463D6D16.2040600@mac.com> <463D988E.8090600@mac.com> Message-ID: On 07/05/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: > If the universe is infinite and uniform, then I think that everything that > can happen, does happen. By infinite I mean that there exists a countable > infinity of any given finite volume of space. By uniform I mean that the > physical laws remain uniform everywhere and that physical parameters such as > density and temperature limit towards some universal mean in any > sufficiently large volume, an assumption that most astronomers make about > subsets of our own Hubble volume. Now, with the conditions described there > is a non-zero probability, call it p, that any given physically possible > event E will be found to occur in a given volume of space, and this > probability is uniform over the infinite volumes of space available. So the > probability that E does not occur within n volumes of space is (1-p)^n. You > can see that as n-> infinity, (1-p)^n approaches zero, which means that for > sufficiently large finite n, Pr(E) can be made arbitrarily close to 1. E > could be something like "an arbitrarily close functional analogue of my > brain at the present moment". > > > Not so fast. If the number, n(E), of possible things that can occur is > much larger (much less a different order of infinity) than the number of > places/states/chances it could occur in then your argument fails. > That would be so, but the Bekenstein bound in quantum mechanics sets an upper limit to the amount of information or number of distinct physical states contained in a finite volume of space. So even if you specified E down to the quantum level (which is overkill: you don't care if your copy is identical to you aside from one atom in her hair), the number of possible things that can happen in a finite volume of space is finite. If the number of volumes is infinite, then E has to occur. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 7 04:24:51 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 14:24:51 +1000 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <463E95B6.4040705@mac.com> References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200705041707.l44H7RaO023799@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> <463E95B6.4040705@mac.com> Message-ID: On 07/05/07, Samantha Atkins wrote: I couldn't manage to believe that God would torment people eternally for > one life of not managing to belief "the right stuff" or for being as > imperfect as the preachers insisted we were created or doomed to be from > birth. It made no sense and did not square with what my budding > mysticism led me too either. > It's funny how people assume intimate knowledge of God's psychological states, personality, and behavioural predispositions. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Mon May 7 04:08:29 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 21:08:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <463E95B6.4040705@mac.com> Message-ID: <200705070431.l474V6Ln020081@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Max More wrote: > > A question for those, like spike, who found religion to be "an > > extremely positive experience"--especially those of a Fundamentalist > > belief system... period of > > aggressive, sometimes obnoxious, atheism. I'm curious how others felt > > as they struggled out of those chains. Max At age 20, in college with a new and wonderful sweetheart, I was very happy and life was good. A professor used one of those nifty new inventions called the video tape recorder to tape Carl Sagan's Cosmos. We viewed these each Wednesday evening at our physics seminars. Those Cosmos episodes were a total mind blowing experience. In one of the chapters there is a short section about evolution that hit me like being whopped side the head with a 2 by. Max you once mentioned that you often had to waste time in your philosophy classes explaining the very basics of evolution to your students. It occurred to me after seeing Sagan's pitch that I had gone to public schools thru high school and had never heard a decent explanation of the whole concept. The teachers introduced paper tigers or avoided the topic all together. I didn't dig into it earlier because I was more of a physics/math/space/machines kinda guy, never did much with biology. I spent the next several months totally engrossed in studying evolution to try to debunk it, totally neglecting everything else including my engineering classes and the new sweetheart. I am amazed she didn't throw me back. I had been told that the evidence for evolution was scant and filled with inconsistency. Found to the contrary that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, filled with consistency. Spent the next couple years trying to unify fundamentalist religion with evolution. I could not. Spent the next decade trying to decide if it matters. It does. The sweetheart married me anyway, 23 years and counting. {8-] Then the internet came along and changed everything. Then extropians showed up on the internet, and I found that there are others like me. If you have never seen Sagan's Cosmos, get that and do so forthwith. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 7 04:46:51 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 23:46:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: References: <463AF1E3.4080201@pobox.com> <359310.18734.qm@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200705041707.l44H7RaO023799@ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com> <463E95B6.4040705@mac.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070506234304.0229c3f8@satx.rr.com> At 02:24 PM 5/7/2007 +1000, Stathis wrote: >It's funny how people assume intimate knowledge of God's >psychological states, personality, and behavioural predispositions. Not at all--it's extremely easy to do, especially with the eternal hell gadget there as a hint. Just pick any handy psychopathic, cruelly authoritarian yet (ahem) profoundly loving tyrant--since that's obviously the generic model--and Bob's your uncle. Damien Broderick From lcorbin at rawbw.com Mon May 7 05:13:21 2007 From: lcorbin at rawbw.com (Lee Corbin) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 22:13:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs References: <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer><0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer><0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677><8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e8501c79067$10d8e6b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> BillK wrote > the mall, or listen on public transport, whenever a group get > together. They don't think of it as swearing, it is just normal for > them. When they get angry, and want to swear, they run into problems > communicating their displeasure because they haven't got any > 'forbidden' words left to use. So violence is the easy way of > expressing anger. I have never heard this mechanism suggested before. Is it original with you, or can you recall where you first encountered it? It would be utterly amazing (in my eyes) if the proper role of profanity---or one of its entirely unobjectionable roles---is to forestall or replace violence. Lee From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com Mon May 7 05:34:10 2007 From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 22:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705070431.l474V6Ln020081@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <555398.78602.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I guess this question isn't technically directed at me (because I never found religion to be a particularly positive experience) but I'll comment anyway because I've been thinking about this subject rather a lot lately. I was raised Christian -- generic Protestant, I suppose, would be the most applicable term since my family attended numerous different church denominations during my formative years (though we spent the longest in a Presbyterian congregation). I "believed" by default, though I never felt any kind of real connection to religious teachings -- my overwhelming feeling was that this religion stuff represented material that I was supposed to accept, sort of like history lessons in school. But the ritual and community aspects of church fellowship always seemed extremely bizarre and somewhat unnerving to me. I never wanted to sing in church, in part because I had no idea what I was actually singing. I got scared when adults talked about things like "speaking in tongues" in the same way I (still) tend to get scared when I am around drunk people. I also had many, many questions about the Bible (in addition to problems with some of the stories) -- who wrote it, where it came from, and how could anyone really be sure about the translation? But I didn't really see myself as having a choice but to "be Christian" until early adolescence. What happened at that point was that I started learning that some people I respected and liked believed -- really believed -- that non-Christians were doomed to Hell. Even if they'd never heard of Jesus. Additionally, I found out that supposedly, even if a person was good and moral throughout their whole life, none of it mattered unless they "accepted" Jesus -- whereas a murderer could simply repent on his deathbed and be saved. So even though I didn't yet know much about evolution or the various logical arguments in favor of atheism at that time, I rejected organized religion on moral grounds at about age 13 or so. I don't recall if I told anyone about this; probably not. But I didn't call myself an "atheist" then; I only heard the word once in passing growing up, from some people at church who were talking about so-and-so's atheist husband (or something along those lines) and were expressing worry about him. When I got into my senior year of high school I read a book at the library called "Atheism: The Case Against God", and also came across some of the writings of people like Bertrand Russell, and that pretty much had me convinced that not only were atheists not "evil", they were probably on the right track. It was like the whole universe suddenly started making more sense when I realized that I wasn't the only person who found the notion of god(s) incoherent. I did go through a period of "what if I'm wrong"? at that point -- I still would have rejected religion on moral grounds regardless, but I went over and over the logic associated with nontheism for several years because I had a hard time understanding why more adults weren't atheists if atheism made so much sense. Part of me felt like maybe I was somehow being "arrogant" and presumptuous, and some of the religious literature I read at the time (since I was trying to get a diversity of viewpoints) seemed to confirm this, claiming that "people who called themselves atheists" are just egomaniacs who think they "don't need god". The logic all seemed to work out in favor of atheism but part of me had a hard time accepting that I'd "figured something (huge and important) out" that seemed to run counter to what I'd been raised with. I'd been okay with a moral rejection of religion for a while, but the idea of asserting that I lacked belief in god on rational grounds felt much weightier, since anyone can have an opinion (even a moral opinion) about something whether or not it "really" exists, but people who make positive or negative claims *about* existence are necessarily held to a higher standard of evidence. And I didn't know if I met that standard (and not having been raised atheistically, asserting a lack of belief in god *felt* like a positive claim even though I later learned that it was the god-believers making the positive claim). That was probably the most "painful" part for me in terms of breaking away from religion entirely -- I certainly never found it (religion) much of a comfort, but I was terribly concerned about making sure that my newfound atheism wasn't a kind of "subconscious rebellion" or manifestation of overconfidence bias. Though I've never been one to just believe something because it's the majority belief (since I had many, many experiences in direct contradiction of many majority beliefs while I was growing up, not the least of which was the fact that my own behavior was often met with the response, "but girls don't...!") religion was a tough one to fully detach from because of all the messages I got that what I was doing (in researching the origins of, and motives for, religious belief) was somehow self-serving or rooted in adolescent power-trip delusions. I wanted to seek truth, not "go on a power trip" or "assert my independence through rebellion", so it took a lot of reading and obsessive pondering and proofs, etc., before I was able to accept that my own motives were genuine. Eventually I did come to terms with the fact that there are a lot of reasons people believe in religious teachings that have nothing to do with rationality, and became quite comfortable with the whole atheism thing, but it definitely wasn't an easy process getting there. - Anne spike wrote: > Max More wrote: > > A question for those, like spike, who found religion to be "an > > extremely positive experience"--especially those of a Fundamentalist > > belief system... period of > > aggressive, sometimes obnoxious, atheism. I'm curious how others felt > > as they struggled out of those chains. Max "Like and equal are not the same thing at all!" - Meg Murry, "A Wrinkle In Time" --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Mon May 7 07:36:57 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 00:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705070431.l474V6Ln020081@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <747080.14550.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Spike wrote: Those Cosmos episodes were a total mind blowing experience. > I was thirteen when I first viewed Cosmos and totally enthralled. My religious mother saw the value of the show and watched them right along with me. The mix of science, history and science fiction/speculation (coupled with excellent production values and special effects) sucked me in like no other program I have ever seen. I would eagerly watch the series again every time it was rebroadcast. I think I have seen it at least three times. It has been at least a decade since my last viewing so I should go to my local public library and check them out! I have not watched them since my exposure to Extropianism. Spike, I really enjoy how you share about your life and personal quest for truth. You and Max have a sense of humanity I don't always get from everyone here. I think part of the reason so many people see God as a dealer of punishment is that for most God is viewed ultimately as a parental/father figure. My own father was totally absent during my life (except for the last few years) and I think this affected my own personal views about God. John spike wrote: > Max More wrote: > > A question for those, like spike, who found religion to be "an > > extremely positive experience"--especially those of a Fundamentalist > > belief system... period of > > aggressive, sometimes obnoxious, atheism. I'm curious how others felt > > as they struggled out of those chains. Max At age 20, in college with a new and wonderful sweetheart, I was very happy and life was good. A professor used one of those nifty new inventions called the video tape recorder to tape Carl Sagan's Cosmos. We viewed these each Wednesday evening at our physics seminars. Those Cosmos episodes were a total mind blowing experience. In one of the chapters there is a short section about evolution that hit me like being whopped side the head with a 2 by. Max you once mentioned that you often had to waste time in your philosophy classes explaining the very basics of evolution to your students. It occurred to me after seeing Sagan's pitch that I had gone to public schools thru high school and had never heard a decent explanation of the whole concept. The teachers introduced paper tigers or avoided the topic all together. I didn't dig into it earlier because I was more of a physics/math/space/machines kinda guy, never did much with biology. I spent the next several months totally engrossed in studying evolution to try to debunk it, totally neglecting everything else including my engineering classes and the new sweetheart. I am amazed she didn't throw me back. I had been told that the evidence for evolution was scant and filled with inconsistency. Found to the contrary that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, filled with consistency. Spent the next couple years trying to unify fundamentalist religion with evolution. I could not. Spent the next decade trying to decide if it matters. It does. The sweetheart married me anyway, 23 years and counting. {8-] Then the internet came along and changed everything. Then extropians showed up on the internet, and I found that there are others like me. If you have never seen Sagan's Cosmos, get that and do so forthwith. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Mon May 7 07:33:20 2007 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 02:33:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705070431.l474V6Ln020081@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <463E95B6.4040705@mac.com> <200705070431.l474V6Ln020081@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <200705070733.l477XOnk026167@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> At 11:08 PM 5/6/2007, spike wrote: >If you have never seen Sagan's Cosmos, get that and do so forthwith. I bow before the memory of Sagan. Truly, a candle in the dark. Thanks for your personal story, spike. Max From scerir at libero.it Mon May 7 08:55:47 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:55:47 +0200 Subject: [ExI] mixed items References: <555398.78602.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000301c79085$81ab8460$96b91f97@archimede> quantum effect explains the mysteries of the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer in photosynthesis [any killer application?] http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/PBD-quantum-secrets.html http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/4/10 http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/quantum-secrets-photosynthesis-13007.html http://www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/590008459.html quantum effect explains (they say) the power of green tea http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=1818.php how a universe (maybe) arises out of itself http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=1818.php but see also http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027 http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0704.3074 and the famous dictum ... "Cosmologists are often wrong, but never in doubt." -Lev Landau From scerir at libero.it Mon May 7 09:03:14 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 11:03:14 +0200 Subject: [ExI] mixed items Message-ID: <001301c79086$8c09ac10$96b91f97@archimede> > how a universe (maybe) arises out of itself > http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=1818.php no, it does not arise out of green tea :-) the correct link should be http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2007/4/23/81554/6492 From neptune at superlink.net Mon May 7 10:46:13 2007 From: neptune at superlink.net (Technotranscendence) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 06:46:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] POL: DHEA ban References: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion><002301c78f17$76b8f0c0$e0893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: <000f01c79094$efa9f140$01893cd1@pavilion> On Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:29 PM BillK pharos at gmail.com wrote: > On 5/5/07, Technotranscendence wrote: > >> As a general question to you: Do you see any scope for free choice at >> all in life? Or does it all come down to whatever the politicians tell >> you is okay? > > The general principle I follow is that society should > help the weaker members of society. And the way to do this is by letting politicians have more power over the choice of all society's members? This leaves aside how one decides who are the weaker members of society and how they may be helped. There are serious difficulties that many overlook in deciding these two things. > The ramifications of that, of course, leads to much > complication. And I don't want to discuss all the > differing political systems which might try to achieve > this objective. :) But I would hope you would admit that some political systems are better at achieving this objective than others. Of course, you probably believe that ever more regulation -- ever more dimunition of the free choice of all society's members (save those who have power over the rest: the political class) -- somehow achieves this result. > In the specific case of buying drugs OTC, many > people do not have the knowledge, experience, > ability, time or inclination to investigate every > product that might be offered. Nor do politicians or other regulators (or doctors, for that matter). What would happen in a free society is people, in general, would either educate themselves or rely on other means of getting the information (or information substitutes*) to make the right decisions. Yes, this would not be perfect, but banning ever more substances or putting them under a perscription only regime is not perfect either. In fact, the latter only means that the "weaker members of society" might not be able to afford the formerly OTC substances. It also means some people who might be well informed and able to make decisions, but who lack money or fear reprisals (fines, jail time, etc.) will not be able to obtain formerly OTC substances -- even if they know and are willing to shoulder the risks. Finally, since the price of these formerly OTC substances will rise -- both their label price or the overall cost of getting them (e.g., if I want DHEA and they ban it, I'll probably have to use more costly means to obtain it, such as the gray or black markets) -- this means everyone in society will have LESS wealth to devote to other things. If, e.g., I have less money to use for non-DHEA purposes, other things being equal, I won't buy other things, donate as much money to charity, or leave as big a tip when I go out to eat. This will likely directly harm the "weaker members of society." > Even with the present regulatory system, the drug > fraud industry is still huge. Yes, it is. Some of it seems to have, too, in the most heavily regulated drug makers. How many people did Vioxx kill? > Billions of dollars are involved. For many endeavours, > including drug testing, it is more efficient to have it > done by a central organization. Actually, no. The actual record of the centralized control regime seems to that overall choice is decreased and insiders in the industry are able to keep competitors out. How so on the latter? The costs of bringing a drug to market -- in both terms of dollars and in terms of time -- have increased so that only big players -- not the weaker members of society -- have a good shot at making newer or better drugs. This decreases the innovativeness of the industry as a whole -- with all its attendant results on consumer choice, including the choice of the weaker members of society. (This is why drugs to treat or cure rare conditions -- including rare conditions that the weaker members of society suffer -- don't get much if any attention. The cost to bring them to market kind of imposes an entry tax that makes them unprofitable to develop and study in the first place.) And, if that worked, why didn't socialism in general work? Why don't, e.g., scientists adopt the same system in regards to science experiments in all fields? Why not have a FDA-like organization to certify findings in genomics, physics, mathematics, economics, geology, etc.? Why not the same in computers or software? > I don't agree with the view sometimes proposed in the > more extreme libertarian circles that the weaker > members of society deserve to get ripped off by the > sharper crooks and con-men. (i.e. The attitude that > it's their own fault if they are not as clever as me). I consider myself an extreme libertarian, but I don't think it's an issue of desert here. The problem is how do you either get people to become smarter so that they make better choices or, at least, have a means of dealing with their lack of smartness. The best way seems to be to have a free society -- meaning one with no regulation at all. Yes, some crooks and con-men will still prey on others. They can be legislated away; such types will always find a way to survive in any system. However, one can minimize the damage they do. > Everybody is weak in some areas and relies on > legislation to protect them in some of their dealings. Actually, that "[e]verybody is weak in some areas" is a good argument NOT to use "legislation to protect them in some of their dealings." Are not politicians and regulators weak? Might they either not know something (the ignorance problem) or have an agenda that clashes with their supposed role (the incentive problem)? If you believe that making laws or enforcing them somehow makes people more knowledgeable or more moral, then you are ripe for being taken in by the most harmful crooks and con-men around: the political class. > It is certainly frustrating if a general law for the > protection of the clueless forbids you doing > something that you are very confident that you can > do perfectly safely. (Over-confidence is a very human > failing, of course. :) ). But if you are that sharp, you > can probably find a way round the law without too > much trouble. ;) Don't you see how this undermines your position? First off, you're overconfident that legislation can solve these problems -- especially that legislators will not be corrupt, unconcerned, or even stupid. (It always amazes me how people are so afraid of either having freedom or others having freedom -- and, yes, freedom means the freedom to make mistakes as well as to succeed -- that they turn it over to people who are no better than them and who might be much worse.) Second, there is no "perfect safety." That, however, is not a reason to disallow free choice in this area, but a reason to allow it. After all, a regulator cannot guarantee perfect safety either, but once you have a regulator in place, then correcting mistakes becomes much harder and regulators are unlikely -- as common sense and history show -- to be any less human, especially in terms of failings like overconfidence, than anyone else. (In fact, they're probably more likely to accentuate overconfidence because some of them believe they have some moral sanction (i.e., have moral overconfidence) or because they believe they're smarter than the people they regulate (i.e., intellectual overconfidence). I'm ignoring the fact that they might not even care about the consumer or the weaker members of society. In that case, even if they're not overconfident, they can do a lot of damage. Why give them power?) Third, regarding being "sharp" I've answered that above. One, if you really care about the weaker members of society, then you've basically consigned them to a system they won't be sharp enough to navigate around. So why make it harder for them? Two, effort or wealth expended on being sharp -- to navigate around the system -- is effort or wealth that can't be used for other things. If you have to spend more time, money, and effort getting DHEA, that means less for other enjoyments -- including the enjoyment of helping others. (On this last point, imagine someone who is middle class and has made an informed decision to use DHEA. Let's say it now costs him $200 per year to use it -- just because he buys it OTC. He also donates $1000 a year to the local food bank. Let's say the ban goes into effect and now DHEA requires a perscription. This means he needs a doctor's visit and the price rises. Let's say the former costs $150 and the latter drives the price of his yearly supply up to $700. Let's say all his income, other costs, and other spending remain the same. Now, you put this charitable guy into a position where he has to choose between given up to $650 less to charity or getting less (maybe no) DHEA. Don't you see how they might harm the weaker members of society?) Three, this will also open up more avenues for the crook and the con-men. There will be more fake claims made by black or gray market crooks and con-men, especially when the prices are driven up. The price rise, after all, will be an incentive for them to more vigorously pursue illicit if not immoral profits in this area. (Note: making pot and similar drugs illegal has done little to keep people out of that market. The price has merely risen to where it becomes profitable to lie, cheat, steal, beat up, and kill over illegal drugs. The same happened with alcohol during Prohibition. Certainly, you don't see many people selling illegal booze today -- much less have gang wars over it.) Regards, Dan * An information substitute is something that allows for a person to make a decision without actually knowing the substitute. For instance, someone might get a recommendation from a friend or associate who knows more about the subject. In this case, the person does not really reduce her ignorance about the subject -- i.e., she doesn't suddently acquire knowledge or expertise -- but relies on her confidence about this knowledge surrogate's knowledge, expertise, or wisdom. People do this all the time when they rely on experts, word of mouth, or test done by organizations like UL and Consumer Reports. (To pre-empt one criticism: such information substitutes are not perfect and can fail. However, as long as people can freely choose among substitutes, the better substitutes will have a wider audience. E.g., an "expert" who makes more mistakes than average will lose out on people who will listen him -- all other things being equal.) From stathisp at gmail.com Mon May 7 11:49:16 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:49:16 +1000 Subject: [ExI] POL: DHEA ban In-Reply-To: References: <008101c78e3e$ac97e220$a2893cd1@pavilion> <002301c78f17$76b8f0c0$e0893cd1@pavilion> Message-ID: On 06/05/07, BillK wrote: The general principle I follow is that society should help the weaker > members of society. > > The ramifications of that, of course, leads to much complication. And > I don't want to discuss all the differing political systems which > might try to achieve this objective. :) > > In the specific case of buying drugs OTC, many people do not have the > knowledge, experience, ability, time or inclination to investigate > every product that might be offered. Even with the present regulatory > system, the drug fraud industry is still huge. Billions of dollars are > involved. For many endeavours, including drug testing, it is more > efficient to have it done by a central organization. > > I don't agree with the view sometimes proposed in the more extreme > libertarian circles that the weaker members of society deserve to get > ripped off by the sharper crooks and con-men. (i.e. The attitude that > it's their own fault if they are not as clever as me). Everybody is > weak in some areas and relies on legislation to protect them in some > of their dealings. > > It is certainly frustrating if a general law for the protection of the > clueless forbids you doing something that you are very confident that > you can do perfectly safely. (Over-confidence is a very human failing, > of course. :) ). But if you are that sharp, you can probably find a > way round the law without too much trouble. ;) People are allowed to do all sorts of stupid things, spend all their money on stuff they don't need or that doesn't work, and if they are lucky they might be protected by laws forbidding false advertising or outright fraud. If you want to ruin yourself gambling on the horses, or kill yourself drinking and smoking, that's OK by the state. Why should drugs be different? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon May 7 11:57:07 2007 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 12:57:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Avoiding Coarseness in our Dialogs In-Reply-To: <0e8501c79067$10d8e6b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> References: <08ff01c78ac1$04a19cd0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <004d01c78cdd$c4f57470$220e4e0c@MyComputer> <0b4101c78d07$36b9c420$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <010b01c78d89$61511c10$a1044e0c@MyComputer> <0c0401c78d96$3e9f5a30$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <8d71341e0705030855t6af4e309u4178d00a6dafca07@mail.gmail.com> <0e8501c79067$10d8e6b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: On 5/7/07, Lee Corbin wrote: > I have never heard this mechanism suggested before. Is it original > with you, or can you recall where you first encountered it? > > It would be utterly amazing (in my eyes) if the proper role of > profanity---or one of its entirely unobjectionable roles---is to > forestall or replace violence. > I doubt if it is original with me. (Although I understand that just making stuff up is a legitimate debating tactic) :) I don't know where I got the idea from, probably read it somewhere, so fire up some search engines and let's see..... Apparently the man you want to read is Professor Timothy Jay, PhD, Department of Psychology, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. He has written several books on the subject. Quote: According to Dr. Timothy Jay, a psychologist and author of books on swearing, including "Cursing in America" and "Why We Curse," trashy talking is a basic human impulse. "This language fulfills emotional needs on two levels: my need, as a speaker, to cope with some emotion, like fear or surprise, and it conveys that feeling very effectively to someone else." In fact, says Jay, it can be a social safety valve: "It allows us to express our emotions without physicality?.Once you can tell people 'I hate you,' you no longer have to put yourself in jeopardy to prove it." Quote: Regardless of who is cursing or what the provocation may be, Dr. Jay said, the rationale for the eruption is often the same. "Time and again, people have told me that cursing is a coping mechanism for them, a way of reducing stress," he said in a telephone interview. "It's a form of anger management that is often underappreciated." Quote: Such behaviors are threat gestures, Professor de Waal said, and they are all a good sign. "A chimpanzee who is really gearing up for a fight doesn't waste time with gestures, but just goes ahead and attacks," he added. By the same token, he said, nothing is more deadly than a person who is too enraged for expletives - who cleanly and quietly picks up a gun and starts shooting. BillK From ben at goertzel.org Mon May 7 14:26:31 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:26:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> Hi, My son just pointed out this article (and the referenced academic paper) to me http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7168 Yet more evidence in favor of the reality of "cold fusion" ;-) -- Ben G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 7 14:54:58 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:54:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070507145458.GS17691@leitl.org> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:26:31AM -0400, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > My son just pointed out this article (and the referenced academic > paper) to me > [1]http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7168 > Yet more evidence in favor of the reality of "cold fusion" ;-) I've seen it already. Calling etching tracks on plastic evidence is... circumstantial. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jonkc at att.net Mon May 7 15:00:25 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 11:00:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Depleted Uranium (was: We Need a Movide People!! Dammit!) References: <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com><463D769C.6010008@pobox.com><160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070506110705.0451fa38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <028b01c790b8$a251cac0$5e044e0c@MyComputer> "Keith Henson" > But depleted uranium that's used for things like bullets never went near > a reactor. It's "depleted" of the easy to fission isotope U235. It's true that depleted Uranium (U238) is depleted of easy to fission U235, but it's not true that it never comes near a reactor, nor is it innocuous stuff. If you want to manufacture Plutonium all you need to do is place depleted uranium near a reactor. And also, about 70% of the energy in an H bomb does not come from U235 or Plutonium or even the fusion reaction, it comes from common cheap depleted Uranium (U238). The fusion reaction makes lots of very high speed neutrons and those high speed neutrons can split even hard to split depleted Uranium; and that releases one hell of a lot of energy. John K Clark From davidmc at gmail.com Mon May 7 16:10:40 2007 From: davidmc at gmail.com (David McFadzean) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:10:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705070733.l477XOnk026167@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> References: <463E95B6.4040705@mac.com> <200705070431.l474V6Ln020081@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <200705070733.l477XOnk026167@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: On 5/7/07, Max More wrote: > I bow before the memory of Sagan. Truly, a candle in the dark. The current issue of Skeptic magazine is a tribute to Sagan>> http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/index.html The Cosmos series is available as a collectors edition DVD boxed set, highly recommended. From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Mon May 7 18:42:28 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 11:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <832991.74609.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It's weird; I wasn't raised with religion by any stretch of imagination. But even when I encountered it and heard about all the great things I could have... nothing clicked at all. I not only didn't believe any of it, I wasn't even attracted by all the "wonderful"(?) promises. I guess I'm missing that brain module. I dunno. On the other hand, I find the prospect of technological uplift very appealing and even possible, if we don't bungle things up too badly. Hmmm. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amara at amara.com Mon May 7 18:45:25 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 20:45:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Stranger Than Fiction: The Pope and the Fish Snacker Message-ID: Sometimes (often), I do wonder if I belong on this planet. Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) apparently sent an official, personal letter to the Vatican, asking Pope Benedict XVI to bless the company's upcoming, "Fish Snacker" sandwich so Catholics could eat it in good grace on Fridays during Lent. As a token of good faith, KFC offered the pope a free Fish Snacker sandwich to try for himself. Mark Morford: "Do Evil CEOs Sleep At Night? In other words: Does Kentucky Fried Chicken deserve a blessing from the pope?" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/03/21/notes032107.DTL Archive: Mark Morford: My favorite 'newspaper columnist' (online San Francisco Chronicle: SFGate) http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/archive/ Amara -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From jonkc at att.net Mon May 7 20:26:50 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:26:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> Benjamin Goertzel > http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7168 They claim to have detected charged particles, if true (and it almost certainly isn't true) that may be of some interest, but the smoking gun, if you want to prove that cold fusion is real, is detecting neutrons. That is the Holly Grail. > Yet more evidence in favor of the reality of "cold fusion" ;-) Unfortunately no, it's just more evidence that somebody knows how to type. This "ACADEMIC PAPER" was printed in the "RESPECTED JOURNAL" Naturwissenschaften. I don't know who respects them because I have never heard of the rag and don't know anybody who has. They say their results are "easily reproduced" so even those numbskull idiotic brainless mainstream scientists can't long remain blind to this wonderful development! If you really believe in what they say here is a way to make a little extra money. I issue the following bet: If an article favorable to cold fusion, not counting Muon-catalyzed cold fusion or sonic induced cold fusion, appears in the top 3 physics journals on this planet, Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters before May 7 2008 I will send you $100, if it doesn't you will send me $10. So what do you say, will you take my bet? For me to accept I need to know your real name and how to contact you. So what do you say, Can you put your money where your mouth is? In case you're interested, Muon-catalyzed cold fusion is the real deal, it exists, no question about it, but I have some doubt it will ever produce useful amounts of energy. Sonic fusion is probably bullshit but I'm a little less certain of that than the electrolysis crap John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 7 20:48:31 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 15:48:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Stranger Than Fiction: The Pope and the Fish Snacker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070507154246.0242ecf0@satx.rr.com> At 08:45 PM 5/7/2007 +0200, Amara wrote: >Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) apparently sent an official, personal letter >to the Vatican, asking Pope Benedict XVI to bless the company's upcoming, >"Fish Snacker" sandwich so Catholics could eat it in good grace on Fridays >during Lent. Fishy as all this sounds, I feel a need to inform the theologically impaired that for four decades it hasn't been a mortal sin (worthy of eternal hellfire) or even a venial sin (a few thousand subjective years of ghastly torment in Purgatory) to eat meat on Friday. "In November 1966, the... bishops? conference?s "Complementary Norms on Penance and Abstinence" released American Catholics from a strict obligation under pain of sin to abstain from meat on Fridays outside of Lent." Unless Benedict changed it back recently, in which case KFC could bring out the Rat Zinger Special. Father Damien From ben at goertzel.org Mon May 7 20:51:43 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:51:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com> > > I issue the following bet: If an article > favorable to cold fusion, not counting Muon-catalyzed cold fusion or sonic > induced cold fusion, appears in the top 3 physics journals on this planet, > Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters before May 7 2008 I will > send you $100, if it doesn't you will send me $10. So what do you say, > will > you take my bet? For me to accept I need to know your real name and how > to contact you. So what do you say, Can you put your money where your > mouth is? Sorry, but I don't accept those journals as ultimate arbiters of truth. The outcome of the event your bet pertains to has more to do with sociology as with physics. So the bet doesn't interest me all that much. I will bet you $100 that one of those three journals publishes an article favorable to cold fusion (not counting muon-catalyzed or sonic induced) within the next 15 years. I reckon that has got to be enough time for the narrow-minded editors at those particular journals to accept the empirical evidence and lift their foolish ban on the topic... ;-) -- Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at att.net Mon May 7 22:14:15 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:14:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com><047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> Benjamin Goertzel > your bet pertains to has more to do with > sociology as with physics. Yes I know, ALL the editors at ALL the top Physics journals on planet Earth are ALL corrupt and ALL refuse to publish a wonderful and historic scientific paper that will live for eternity. Every fucking single one of them! If you believe that then there's this bridge I'd like to sell you. > I don't accept those journals as ultimate arbiters of truth. I don't accept them are the ULTIMATE arbiters of truth either, but I do maintain they are FAR better arbiters of the truth than some jackass posting crap on the net, or a nincompoop publishing some nonsense in a journal nobody ever heard of. > I will bet you $100 that one of those three journals publishes an article > favorable to cold fusion I made a real bet, I actually expected to get paid or have to pay up, you did not. I actually considered my finances and thought about how to cover my bet if more than expected expect took my bet and I was proven unrepentantly to be wrong. In my mind I was (and still am) willing to pay up regardless of what it costs if I am proven wrong. I don't believe that thought ever crossed your brain. And In 15 years it is likely that one or both of us will be dead, certainly we will have lost track of each other and will not know how to collect. And 15 years is one hell of a long time, even assuming no breakthroughs are made computers will be at least 2000 times as powerful as they are now; why is cold fusion such a retard? It's obvious you don't really want to make a real bet. I DO! If you want to call in the lawyers and make it legally binding that's fine by me. And why the hell should it take 15 years?! They said the results were "easily reproduced. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Mon May 7 22:32:40 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:32:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com> <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705071532r6ccc1905h5a427a896964e0c@mail.gmail.com> > > > > It's obvious you don't really want to make a real bet. I DO! If you want > to > call in the lawyers and make it legally binding that's fine by me. And why > the hell should it take 15 years?! They said the results were "easily > reproduced. > > John K Clark > I do want to make a real bet. I am 40 years old, in good health, and certainly don't expect to be dead in 15 years. If you expect to be dead in 15 years, I'm sincerely sorry! I'll even downgrade it to 10 years if that would make you happier... Long term bets are not my idea, BTW; are you familiar with http://www.longbets.org/ ? These are real bets. -- Ben Goertzel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 7 23:01:42 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:01:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com> <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> Eugen, when JKC said >a nincompoop publishing some nonsense in a journal >nobody ever heard of... Naturwissenschaften. I don't know who >respects them because I have never heard of the rag and don't know >anybody who has. was he justified? I had a quick look online but couldn't properly evaluate this Springer publication without a German guide. It looks pretty establishment to me. Damien From hkhenson at rogers.com Mon May 7 19:29:55 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 15:29:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Depleted Uranium (was: We Need a Movide People!! Dammit!) In-Reply-To: <028b01c790b8$a251cac0$5e044e0c@MyComputer> References: <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070506110705.0451fa38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070507150807.04554fb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 11:00 AM 5/7/2007 -0400, you wrote: >"Keith Henson" > > > But depleted uranium that's used for things like bullets never went near > > a reactor. It's "depleted" of the easy to fission isotope U235. > >It's true that depleted Uranium (U238) is depleted of easy to fission U235, >but it's not true that it never comes near a reactor, I was specific about bullets. >nor is it innocuous >stuff. If you want to manufacture Plutonium all you need to do is place >depleted uranium near a reactor. More like deep inside in the neutron flux. I recently wrote about making super high grade Pu 239 by pumping a depleted uranium solution through a reactor core and sorting out the plutonium (chemically) before it picks up another neutron. To my surprise no calls from 3 letter agencies. >And also, about 70% of the energy in an H bomb does not come from U235 or >Plutonium or even the fusion reaction, it comes from common cheap depleted >Uranium (U238). The fusion reaction makes lots of very high speed neutrons >and those high speed neutrons can split even hard to split depleted Uranium; >and that releases one hell of a lot of energy. I know some of the H bombs were made this way. I am not sure any are still in active inventory because these monsters created an awful lot of fallout. But you are spot on. If you hit U 238 hard enough it fissions From jonkc at att.net Mon May 7 23:19:11 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 19:19:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com><047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com><04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <075d01c790fe$2cbc9d80$04074e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > It looks pretty establishment to me. So then Damien, do you accept my bet? John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon May 7 23:55:22 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:55:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <075d01c790fe$2cbc9d80$04074e0c@MyComputer> References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com> <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> <075d01c790fe$2cbc9d80$04074e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070507185441.023390a8@satx.rr.com> At 07:19 PM 5/7/2007 -0400, John K Clark wrote: >So then Damien, do you accept my bet? With my psychic powers, it would be grossly unethical. Damien Broderick From ben at goertzel.org Tue May 8 01:58:02 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:58:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com> <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705071858gc054c3bo4c9b7055f7f27ec7@mail.gmail.com> The journal Naturwissenschaften is consistently in the top 10 multidisciplinary science journals as measured by impact factor: http://www.in-cites.com/research/2005/july_18_2005-1.html Which is a pretty flawed measure, but it's the most common quantative way of assessing publications. -- Ben G On 5/7/07, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Eugen, when JKC said > > >a nincompoop publishing some nonsense in a journal > >nobody ever heard of... Naturwissenschaften. I don't know who > >respects them because I have never heard of the rag and don't know > >anybody who has. > > was he justified? I had a quick look online but couldn't properly > evaluate this Springer publication without a German guide. It looks > pretty establishment to me. > > Damien > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 8 03:20:50 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 05:20:50 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [ACT] cold fusion Message-ID: <20070508032050.GY17691@leitl.org> ----- Forwarded message from "Perry E. Metzger" ----- From: "Perry E. Metzger" Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 15:45:24 -0400 To: act at crackmuppet.org Subject: [ACT] cold fusion [People should feel free to forward this if they like.] Some people got a brand new "cold fusion in Palladium" paper published in the last couple of weeks, and it has made several news sources, including the Kurzweil blog. See, for example: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7168 A friend asked me what I thought, so I did a quick Fermi estimate. The answer is, I have a lot of trouble believing it. See below for detailed calculations. The general hypothesis given is that, if the phenomenon is real, what is happening in such cases is that the deuterons are close enough together to tunnel over the coulomb barrier into each other -- it would have to be that because the number of deuterons with enough thermal energy to fuse with another is essentially zero. So, what sort of tunneling probabilities are we talking about? I don't now enough to do the calculation "right", but, as I said, lets do a "Fermi estimate". Lets consider the coulombic repulsion of two protons held 5fm apart. A helium nucleus is order 1fm. An elementary charge is 1.6E-19 coulombs. The potential energy between two particles of that charge is U = \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r} So we're talking (1.6E-19 ^ 2) / (4 * 3.14159 * 8.854E-12 * 5E-15) Plug that in to calc and I get about 4.60E-14 Joules. That doesn't seem like a lot, but an electron-volt is just 1.60E-19 Joules -- so that's a barrier of 287,500 eV, which is pretty high for wee particles like this, and we're still probably several times too far away. Unfortunately, at this point I have a bit of a problem because the textbook solutions for tunneling through a potential well assume that we're talking about a square well (a step function) and the potential function here is not really like that. However, I've gone this far with the back-of-the-envelope, so lets go all the way. I doubt I'm *that* far off. The distance between nucleii in typical bonds is not less than about an angstrom, 1E-10m. I presume the way that Pd solvation would catalyze fusion would be by getting the deuterons closer together. So, lets do the calculation for .1 angstroms -- impossibly close given the energies that would require. We also need to estimate the thermal energy of the deuterons. Normally we'd say at room temperature (where these things are being run) that it would be about 3kT/2 with T=300K and k=1.38E-23J/K or so, but we'll double it just to be kind and say 3kT for a value of about 1.25E-20J. Given the height of the barrier this isn't going to make much of a difference anyway, even if I multiplied it by ten. The mass is about 3.32e-27kg. I'll assume that the potential energy barrier is pretty "smooth" and pick a value for the square well barrier of 2.3E-14J -- an "average" of zero and something order of magnitude of the maximum. I'll follow the formula in one of my texts that says that the probability of getting through is very roughly: prob = e^[-(2a/hbar)*sqrt(2m(U-E))] where "a" is the distance, U is the potential of the barrier and E is the kinetic energy of the particle attempting to tunnel. At .1 angstrom, the probability of tunneling across the square potential is somewhere in the range of 1 in 7.8E1021 events. Already we can see this isn't pretty. Now, how many "events" can we expect? Lets say we have a mole of deuterons (6.023E23) and that we have (probably far more than we can realistically expect, based on usual vibrational spectra, but it won't matter even if we're off by thousands) somewhere around around 1E10 collisions a second. Lets consider the events over 1 hour. 6.023E23*1E10*3600 is about 2.2E37. Divide. That means we can expect to wait something like 3.5E986 hours between seeing fusion events -- something like 3.9E970 times the life of the universe. I might be off by ten or twenty orders of magnitude. Who cares, though? This mechanism doesn't look like a realistic possibility. Perry _______________________________________________ ACT mailing list ACT at crackmuppet.org http://lists.crackmuppet.org/listinfo.cgi/act-crackmuppet.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue May 8 03:30:17 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:30:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705071858gc054c3bo4c9b7055f7f27ec7@mail.gmail.com > References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com> <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0705071858gc054c3bo4c9b7055f7f27ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070507222137.02249b60@satx.rr.com> At 09:58 PM 5/7/2007 -0400, Ben wrote: >The journal Naturwissenschaften is consistently in the top 10 >multidisciplinary science journals as measured by impact >factor: > >http://www.in-cites.com/research/2005/july_18_2005-1.html > Hmm. 6th highest citation impact for 2000-2004, after Nature, Science, PNAS, IBM J. Res. Devel., and Annals NY Acad. Sci., where "total citations to a journal's published papers are divided by the total number of papers that the journal published, producing a citations-per-paper impact score over a five-year period" Pitiful excuse for a rag, then. Obviously COMPLETE BOGUS BULLSHIT. (Well, in modest support of that assessment, its score was just 3.67 cf. Nature's 50.99--but hardly "a journal nobody ever heard of"...) Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 8 03:41:32 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 05:41:32 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Depleted Uranium (was: We Need a Movide People!! Dammit!) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20070507150807.04554fb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> References: <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070506110705.0451fa38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070507150807.04554fb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20070508034132.GA17691@leitl.org> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:29:55PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > More like deep inside in the neutron flux. I recently wrote about making > super high grade Pu 239 by pumping a depleted uranium solution through a > reactor core and sorting out the plutonium (chemically) before it picks up > another neutron. To my surprise no calls from 3 letter agencies. It takes a great deal more than suggesting something so well-known (and which takes a nuclear reactor) to get a call from a TLA. Try posting a detailed blueprint for a nuclear weapon in an arsenal, or at least something when has been tested. I listen very closely to when weapon designers talk, and it is very obvious that they're damn careful about what they say and what they don't say. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From spike66 at comcast.net Tue May 8 03:47:53 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 20:47:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Stranger Than Fiction: The Pope and the Fish Snacker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200705080402.l4842uLt007995@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > Subject: [ExI] Stranger Than Fiction: The Pope and the Fish Snacker > > Sometimes (often), I do wonder if I belong on this planet. > > Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) apparently sent an official, personal letter > to the Vatican, asking Pope Benedict XVI to bless the company's upcoming, > "Fish Snacker" sandwich so Catholics could eat it in good grace on Fridays > during Lent... > > Mark Morford: > "Do Evil CEOs Sleep At Night? > In other words: Does Kentucky Fried Chicken deserve a blessing from the > pope?" > Archive: Mark Morford: My favorite 'newspaper columnist' > http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/archive/ > Amara Mark Morford has real literary talent. The article was worth the time to read just for this quote: In other words, KFC wants the Fish Snacker to be officially sanctioned for those days when Catholics don't eat meat but when they apparently have zero problem shoving a nasty frozen deep-fried chemical-blasted hunk of cholesterol and salt and fat and binding agents and mystery gunk made by one of the skankiest junk-food purveyors in America into their bloodstreams. You know, just the way Jesus intended. {8^D spike From jrd1415 at gmail.com Tue May 8 04:04:26 2007 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:04:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [ACT] cold fusion In-Reply-To: <20070508032050.GY17691@leitl.org> References: <20070508032050.GY17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: According to the abstract of: Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd/D lattice: emission of charged particles http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/ "A model based upon electron capture is proposed to explain the reaction products observed in the Pd/D-D2O system." I don't think this is the same as deuteron to deuteron fusion. -- Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles On 5/7/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from "Perry E. Metzger" ----- > > From: "Perry E. Metzger" > Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 15:45:24 -0400 > To: act at crackmuppet.org > Subject: [ACT] cold fusion > > > [People should feel free to forward this if they like.] > > Some people got a brand new "cold fusion in Palladium" paper published > in the last couple of weeks, and it has made several news sources, > including the Kurzweil blog. > > See, for example: > http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7168 > > A friend asked me what I thought, so I did a quick Fermi estimate. > > The answer is, I have a lot of trouble believing it. See below for > detailed calculations. > > The general hypothesis given is that, if the phenomenon is real, what > is happening in such cases is that the deuterons are close enough > together to tunnel over the coulomb barrier into each other -- it > would have to be that because the number of deuterons with enough > thermal energy to fuse with another is essentially zero. > > So, what sort of tunneling probabilities are we talking about? > > I don't now enough to do the calculation "right", but, as I said, lets > do a "Fermi estimate". Lets consider the coulombic repulsion of two > protons held 5fm apart. A helium nucleus is order 1fm. > > An elementary charge is 1.6E-19 coulombs. The potential energy between > two particles of that charge is > > U = \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 r} > > So we're talking (1.6E-19 ^ 2) / (4 * 3.14159 * 8.854E-12 * 5E-15) > > Plug that in to calc and I get about 4.60E-14 Joules. > > That doesn't seem like a lot, but an electron-volt is just 1.60E-19 > Joules -- so that's a barrier of 287,500 eV, which is pretty high for > wee particles like this, and we're still probably several times too far > away. > > Unfortunately, at this point I have a bit of a problem because the > textbook solutions for tunneling through a potential well assume that > we're talking about a square well (a step function) and the potential > function here is not really like that. However, I've gone this far > with the back-of-the-envelope, so lets go all the way. I doubt I'm > *that* far off. > > The distance between nucleii in typical bonds is not less than about > an angstrom, 1E-10m. I presume the way that Pd solvation would > catalyze fusion would be by getting the deuterons closer together. So, > lets do the calculation for .1 angstroms -- impossibly close given the > energies that would require. > > We also need to estimate the thermal energy of the deuterons. Normally > we'd say at room temperature (where these things are being run) that > it would be about 3kT/2 with T=300K and k=1.38E-23J/K or so, but > we'll double it just to be kind and say 3kT for a value of about > 1.25E-20J. Given the height of the barrier this isn't going to make > much of a difference anyway, even if I multiplied it by ten. > > The mass is about 3.32e-27kg. I'll assume that the potential energy > barrier is pretty "smooth" and pick a value for the square well > barrier of 2.3E-14J -- an "average" of zero and something order of > magnitude of the maximum. > > I'll follow the formula in one of my texts that says that the > probability of getting through is very roughly: > > prob = e^[-(2a/hbar)*sqrt(2m(U-E))] > > where "a" is the distance, U is the potential of the barrier and E is > the kinetic energy of the particle attempting to tunnel. > > At .1 angstrom, the probability of tunneling across the square > potential is somewhere in the range of 1 in 7.8E1021 events. Already > we can see this isn't pretty. > > Now, how many "events" can we expect? Lets say we have a mole of > deuterons (6.023E23) and that we have (probably far more than we can > realistically expect, based on usual vibrational spectra, but it won't > matter even if we're off by thousands) somewhere around around 1E10 > collisions a second. Lets consider the events over 1 hour. > > 6.023E23*1E10*3600 is about 2.2E37. Divide. > > That means we can expect to wait something like 3.5E986 hours between > seeing fusion events -- something like 3.9E970 times the life of the > universe. > > I might be off by ten or twenty orders of magnitude. Who cares, though? > This mechanism doesn't look like a realistic possibility. > > Perry > _______________________________________________ > ACT mailing list > ACT at crackmuppet.org > http://lists.crackmuppet.org/listinfo.cgi/act-crackmuppet.org > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > -- > Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org > ______________________________________________________________ > ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org > 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From fauxever at sprynet.com Tue May 8 04:08:26 2007 From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:08:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion References: <832991.74609.qm@web37409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003501c79126$8b0dca30$6501a8c0@brainiac> From: "A B" To: "ExI chat list" > It's weird; I wasn't raised with religion by any > stretch of imagination. But even when I encountered it > and heard about all the great things I could have... > nothing clicked at all. I not only didn't believe any > of it, I wasn't even attracted by all the > "wonderful"(?) promises. You and me both! I could never "get" the "wonderful"(?) promises, either. All I was able to observe - even as a child - were the limitations, divisiveness, exclusivity and bigotry (within Christianity's various subsets, and among the various other religions). > I guess I'm missing that brain module. I dunno. We were born with the respective physical defects of ... lacking any religious bones in our bodies! (Another case of less is more, I daresay ...) :) Olga From stathisp at gmail.com Tue May 8 05:36:30 2007 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 15:36:30 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Depleted Uranium (was: We Need a Movide People!! Dammit!) In-Reply-To: <20070508034132.GA17691@leitl.org> References: <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070506110705.0451fa38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070507150807.04554fb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <20070508034132.GA17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: On 08/05/07, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:29:55PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > > More like deep inside in the neutron flux. I recently wrote about > making > > super high grade Pu 239 by pumping a depleted uranium solution through a > > reactor core and sorting out the plutonium (chemically) before it picks > up > > another neutron. To my surprise no calls from 3 letter agencies. > > It takes a great deal more than suggesting something so well-known > (and which takes a nuclear reactor) to get a call from a TLA. > > Try posting a detailed blueprint for a nuclear weapon in an arsenal, > or at least something when has been tested. I listen very closely to > when weapon designers talk, and it is very obvious that they're damn > careful about what they say and what they don't say. > Surely all a terrorist with access to fissionable material would need is 1940's technology to be a real threat. Fancy modern delivery systems would be icing on the cake. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkhenson at rogers.com Tue May 8 04:08:37 2007 From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 00:08:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Depleted Uranium (was: We Need a Movide People!! Dammit!) In-Reply-To: <20070508034132.GA17691@leitl.org> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20070507150807.04554fb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <463D769C.6010008@pobox.com> <160714.32271.qm@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070506110705.0451fa38@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20070507150807.04554fb0@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20070508000519.0437f5a8@pop.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> At 05:41 AM 5/8/2007 +0200, you wrote: >On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 03:29:55PM -0400, Keith Henson wrote: > > > More like deep inside in the neutron flux. I recently wrote about making > > super high grade Pu 239 by pumping a depleted uranium solution through a > > reactor core and sorting out the plutonium (chemically) before it picks up > > another neutron. To my surprise no calls from 3 letter agencies. > >It takes a great deal more than suggesting something so well-known >(and which takes a nuclear reactor) to get a call from a TLA. That's a relief to me if it was well-known because I could not find it. Can you supply a URL? It would be a major comfort when a city get's nuked to know it wasn't due to my ideas. Keith From scerir at libero.it Tue May 8 06:25:13 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 08:25:13 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com><047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com><04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <003501c79139$a36fe050$89951f97@archimede> Damien > was he justified? it *was* a very good place to publish technical/philosophical papers, see i.e. E.Schr?dinger, "Die gegenw?rtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik", Naturwissenschaften, p.807-812 823-828 844-849 (1935), [the 'Schroedinger cat' paper] A.Einstein, "Dialog ?ber Einw?nde gegen die Relativit?tstheorie", Naturwissenschaften, p 697-702, (1918) [the gravitational 'twin paradox' paper] From eugen at leitl.org Tue May 8 07:19:53 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 09:19:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <003501c79139$a36fe050$89951f97@archimede> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> <003501c79139$a36fe050$89951f97@archimede> Message-ID: <20070508071953.GL17691@leitl.org> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 08:25:13AM +0200, scerir wrote: > Damien > > was he justified? > > it *was* a very good place to publish > technical/philosophical papers, see i.e. The emphasis is on the past tense here. While I've seen references to Naturwissenschaften, it's a low-ranking interdisciplinary publication these days. While I haven't seen the original paper, I'm a bit dubious about using CR-39 detectors as a sole incidence of high-energy radiation. Interestingly enough, the second link for CR-39 detector on Google is http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Roussetskiapplicatio.pdf -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From tyleremerson at gmail.com Tue May 8 07:49:10 2007 From: tyleremerson at gmail.com (Tyler Emerson) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 00:49:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] SIAI: Seeking Experienced Web Designer/Programmer Message-ID: <632d2cda0705080049n147a2a1cn2092d11c7f2a667d@mail.gmail.com> SIAI's web programmer/designer will be unavailable until May 22nd. I need someone to step-in to work with SIAI staff immediately on some critical design tasks. If interested, please send samples of your work. An hourly rate will be offered for your work. We need someone talented who can work fast. If your design and programming skill would have allowed you to create a similar or superior website than www.singinst.org or sss.stanford.edu, then let's talk. Thanks, Tyler -- Tyler Emerson | Executive Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence P.O . Box 50182, Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA emerson at singinst.org | www.singinst.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tyleremerson at gmail.com Tue May 8 07:52:34 2007 From: tyleremerson at gmail.com (Tyler Emerson) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 00:52:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] SIAI: Seeking Experienced Web Designer/Programmer Message-ID: <632d2cda0705080052p3efb0072ka98ccf8002b793ea@mail.gmail.com> SIAI's web programmer/designer will be unavailable until May 22nd. I need someone to step-in to work with SIAI staff immediately on some critical design tasks. If interested, please send samples of your work. An hourly rate will be offered for your work. We need someone talented who can work fast. If your design and programming skill would have allowed you to create a similar or superior website than www.singinst.org or sss.stanford.edu, then let's talk. Thanks, Tyler -- Tyler Emerson | Executive Director Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence P.O . Box 50182, Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA emerson at singinst.org | www.singinst.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at libero.it Tue May 8 09:58:05 2007 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 11:58:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com><003501c79139$a36fe050$89951f97@archimede> <20070508071953.GL17691@leitl.org> Message-ID: <001e01c79157$6040f300$a3bc1f97@archimede> > > it *was* a very good place to publish > > technical/philosophical papers, see i.e. Eugen: > The emphasis is on the past tense here. Yes, it is not as important as the Rev.Mod.Physics, or the Physical Review, or Nature, or Science. Btw, I did not realize the reasons why Nature or Science do not publish (positive or negative) experiments about 'cold fusion'. I can imagine, very well, the true reasons, but they are different from what they say [1]. s. [1] Since it is on the web now ... try this link http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/19102006_rapporto41.asp and then open the second 'pdf' from above, on the right side of the page, "la lettera del 23 luglio 2002" :-) From jonkc at att.net Tue May 8 14:53:34 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 10:53:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com><047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com><04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com><3cf171fe0705071858gc054c3bo4c9b7055f7f27ec7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507222137.02249b60@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00fe01c79180$b1466310$1f084e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > 6th highest citation impact for 2000-2004 And did you see who was #8? The Royal Society Of New Zealand! And in 2003 Scientific American was #5 and Naturwissenschaften was #7. Scientific American?! I don't know what sort of weed the guy who dreamed up that list was smoking but I'd like to get some. But if I'm wrong and Naturwissenschaften really is a wonderful journal then I just don't understand why nobody will take my bet. It's easy money. John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Tue May 8 16:15:22 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:15:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <00fe01c79180$b1466310$1f084e0c@MyComputer> References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com> <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0705071858gc054c3bo4c9b7055f7f27ec7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507222137.02249b60@satx.rr.com> <00fe01c79180$b1466310$1f084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705080915s4050e1abse710ead7e521e45a@mail.gmail.com> Naturwissenschaften is a reasonably high-quality magazine, with a respectable impact factor. As for your bet: The problem is that, as discussed already, the decision of certain leading journals to ban papers on cold fusion seems to have been a particularly "subjective" human decision, even more so than the average decision within the (never of course totally "objective") scientific community. So whether or not one of those journals publishes a paper on CF in the next year depends on the mood and attitudinal changes of their editors, as much as on anything else. But I figure a big enough breakthrough in CF would overcome their bad attitudes toward CF. I am pretty confident a sufficiently large breakthrough will occur in the next 10-15 years, but maybe not the next 1 year, given the fairly small amount of attention and funding being devoted to CF... -- Ben On 5/8/07, John K Clark wrote: > > "Damien Broderick" > > > 6th highest citation impact for 2000-2004 > > And did you see who was #8? The Royal Society Of New Zealand! And in 2003 > Scientific American was #5 and Naturwissenschaften was #7. Scientific > American?! > > I don't know what sort of weed the guy who dreamed up that list was > smoking > but I'd like to get some. But if I'm wrong and Naturwissenschaften really > is > a wonderful journal then I just don't understand why nobody will take my > bet. It's easy money. > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benboc at lineone.net Tue May 8 19:22:29 2007 From: benboc at lineone.net (ben) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 20:22:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Depleted Uranium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4640CDF5.6090203@lineone.net> John K Clark wrote: > And also, about 70% of the energy in an H bomb does not come from > U235 or Plutonium or even the fusion reaction, it comes from common > cheap depleted Uranium (U238). The fusion reaction makes lots of very > high speed neutrons and those high speed neutrons can split even > hard to split depleted Uranium; and that releases one hell of a lot > of energy. Spot the deliberate mistake ;> ben zaiboc From jonkc at att.net Tue May 8 20:18:23 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:18:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com><047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer><3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com><04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer><7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com><3cf171fe0705071858gc054c3bo4c9b7055f7f27ec7@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20070507222137.02249b60@satx.rr.com><00fe01c79180$b1466310$1f084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705080915s4050e1abse710ead7e521e45a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001d01c791ae$378c3120$1b084e0c@MyComputer> Benjamin Goertzel > Naturwissenschaften is a reasonably high-quality magazine, More respectable than Physical Review Letters if you believe that loony list because it's not even on it; but American Scientist and Scientific American are, and they are just one step above Popular Mechanics. And I'm sure The Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of New Zealand is nice, but is it really better than "Physical Review Letters"? > with a respectable impact factor. Not only have I never heard of Naturwissenschaften I've never heard of "impact factor" either. >As for your bet: The problem is that, as discussed already, > the decision of certain leading journals to ban papers on > cold fusion BULLSHIT! I have never heard any journal state such a ban, the only ban they have is against crappy papers. > I figure a big enough breakthrough in CF would > overcome their bad attitudes toward CF. I am pretty confident > a sufficiently large breakthrough will occur in the next 10-15 years, Why are you "pretty confident"? There was no big breakthrough in the last 15 years, in fact there were no small breakthroughs, there was nothing, NOT ONE THING. I have no reason to think the next 15 years will be one bit better. And won't anyone put their money where their mouth is? John K Clark From ben at goertzel.org Tue May 8 20:37:30 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:37:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <001d01c791ae$378c3120$1b084e0c@MyComputer> References: <3cf171fe0705070726p5a098100v6d822dda5c677b05@mail.gmail.com> <047701c790e6$10d327a0$04074e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705071351k503e69c0s7a371c6ad85e1182@mail.gmail.com> <04bc01c790f5$14bcc010$04074e0c@MyComputer> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507175723.023af718@satx.rr.com> <3cf171fe0705071858gc054c3bo4c9b7055f7f27ec7@mail.gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070507222137.02249b60@satx.rr.com> <00fe01c79180$b1466310$1f084e0c@MyComputer> <3cf171fe0705080915s4050e1abse710ead7e521e45a@mail.gmail.com> <001d01c791ae$378c3120$1b084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705081337r1b12018bk63111c0a3cd4d779@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/07, John K Clark wrote: > > Benjamin Goertzel > > > Naturwissenschaften is a reasonably high-quality magazine, > > More respectable than Physical Review Letters if you believe that loony > list > because it's not even on it; but American Scientist and Scientific > American > are, and they are just one step above Popular Mechanics. And I'm sure The > Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of New Zealand is nice, but is it really > better than "Physical Review Letters"? That was specifically a list of multidisciplinary science magazines, listed by impact factor. It did not include single-discipline journals. > with a respectable impact factor. > > Not only have I never heard of Naturwissenschaften I've never heard of > "impact factor" either. Well, essentially all contemporary academics have heard of it. To educate yourself, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor > I have never heard any journal state such a ban, the only ban they have is > against crappy papers. The politics of cold fusion have been complex. In several cases Nature has rejected cold fusion papers without appropriate refereeing. And early on, there was the key refusal by Nature to publish scientific correspondence which questioned the Caltech "null" calorimetry experiments. In another case, though, Science published a cold fusion paper although government officials tried to convince it not to: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/03/25/tbltpfusion.DTL > I figure a big enough breakthrough in CF would > > overcome their bad attitudes toward CF. I am pretty confident > > a sufficiently large breakthrough will occur in the next 10-15 years, > > Why are you "pretty confident"? There was no big breakthrough in the last > 15 > years, in fact there were no small breakthroughs, there was nothing, NOT > ONE > THING. Well that's just not true, there have been dozens of publications. > > And won't anyone put their money where their mouth is? You turned down my $100 bet, John. -- Ben G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Tue May 8 20:43:25 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Joshua Cowan) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 20:43:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <001d01c791ae$378c3120$1b084e0c@MyComputer> Message-ID: It's probably just me, but sometimes I feel like I should chant "fight, fight, Fight" while keeping an eye out for the principal. :-) >From: "John K Clark" >Reply-To: ExI chat list >To: "ExI chat list" >Subject: Re: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. >Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:18:23 -0400 > >Benjamin Goertzel > > > Naturwissenschaften is a reasonably high-quality magazine, > >More respectable than Physical Review Letters if you believe that loony >list >because it's not even on it; but American Scientist and Scientific American >are, and they are just one step above Popular Mechanics. And I'm sure The >Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of New Zealand is nice, but is it really >better than "Physical Review Letters"? > > > with a respectable impact factor. > >Not only have I never heard of Naturwissenschaften I've never heard of >"impact factor" either. > > >As for your bet: The problem is that, as discussed already, > > the decision of certain leading journals to ban papers on > > cold fusion > >BULLSHIT! > >I have never heard any journal state such a ban, the only ban they have is >against crappy papers. > > > I figure a big enough breakthrough in CF would > > overcome their bad attitudes toward CF. I am pretty confident > > a sufficiently large breakthrough will occur in the next 10-15 years, > >Why are you "pretty confident"? There was no big breakthrough in the last >15 >years, in fact there were no small breakthroughs, there was nothing, NOT >ONE >THING. I have no reason to think the next 15 years will be one bit better. > >And won't anyone put their money where their mouth is? > >John K Clark > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >extropy-chat mailing list >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From austriaaugust at yahoo.com Tue May 8 21:12:31 2007 From: austriaaugust at yahoo.com (A B) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 14:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0705081337r1b12018bk63111c0a3cd4d779@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <798938.91646.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Wouldn't cold fusion be a direct and obvious violation of conservation of energy? You could just keep fusing the lighter elements and then eventually recover the input energy by fissioning (fissing?) the heavy-element end products. I know that it requires more input energy the heavier the element gets, but fat stars manage to do it. That seems more like an engineering difficulty rather than an immutable fundamental barrier. I don't know enough about it one way or another, but I'm really hoping that it can be validated. That'd be sweeeet. Best Wishes, Jeffrey Herrlich ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather From ben at goertzel.org Tue May 8 22:13:00 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 18:13:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <798938.91646.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <3cf171fe0705081337r1b12018bk63111c0a3cd4d779@mail.gmail.com> <798938.91646.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705081513g2fed20a8xcfd0336cb93160f0@mail.gmail.com> Short answer: No. Read "Excess Heat" ... On 5/8/07, A B wrote: > > > Wouldn't cold fusion be a direct and obvious violation > of conservation of energy? You could just keep fusing > the lighter elements and then eventually recover the > input energy by fissioning (fissing?) the > heavy-element end products. I know that it requires > more input energy the heavier the element gets, but > fat stars manage to do it. That seems more like an > engineering difficulty rather than an immutable > fundamental barrier. I don't know enough about it one > way or another, but I'm really hoping that it can be > validated. That'd be sweeeet. > > Best Wishes, > > Jeffrey Herrlich > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast > with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amara at amara.com Tue May 8 22:18:02 2007 From: amara at amara.com (Amara Graps) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 00:18:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: "The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever..." Message-ID: Well.. of all places. The transhumanists (congrats Michael!) are in "Psychology Today" and the author didn't paint us as flakes, despite the title of the piece. I am pleasantly surprised. "The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... and Other Champions of the Lost Cause" By:Kathleen McGowan Page 5 of 5 http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070227-000001&page=5 Ciao, Amara P.S. And I especially like the advertisement directly underneath the title: "Find a therapist near you..." -- Amara Graps, PhD www.amara.com INAF Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario (IFSI), Roma, ITALIA Associate Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute (PSI), Tucson From nvitamore at austin.rr.com Tue May 8 22:41:06 2007 From: nvitamore at austin.rr.com (nvitamore at austin.rr.com) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 18:41:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... Message-ID: <380-2200752822416365@M2W014.mail2web.com> (Thanks Amara) Congratulations Michael. You are a hero! Natasha -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft? Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail From nanogirl at halcyon.com Tue May 8 23:32:03 2007 From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:32:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] TEst References: <20061102062735.57668.qmail@web52612.mail.yahoo.com><015601c7010a$6a7d5d50$450a4e0c@MyComputer><008101c701b4$37b35870$250b4e0c@MyComputer><3C5E9884-5CD8-46CC-9841-28C6980CE600@randallsquared.com><059a01c701f8$841e1670$bb0a4e0c@MyComputer><092401c78ae4$1892f810$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> <09c201c78b8b$342b33b0$6501a8c0@homeef7b612677> Message-ID: <006b01c791c9$9834ce40$0200a8c0@Nano> test -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From torsteinhaldorsen at gmail.com Wed May 9 01:21:46 2007 From: torsteinhaldorsen at gmail.com (Torstein Haldorsen) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 03:21:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... In-Reply-To: <380-2200752822416365@M2W014.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200752822416365@M2W014.mail2web.com> Message-ID: If people didn't take a stand and fight for "lost causes" there would surely be no progress in the world. "Deviating from the mainstream by yourself is quite different than deviating from it with others who are successful, intelligent, insightful, and willing to discuss unpopular beliefs together," says Anissimov. Great quote, funny article and excellent PR. At least as good PR as one could hope for. -TT On 5/9/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > > (Thanks Amara) > > Congratulations Michael. You are a hero! > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on > Microsoft(r) > Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 9 03:49:08 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 20:49:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705070733.l477XOnk026167@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> Message-ID: <200705090354.l493s9i5015033@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max More ... > > > I bow before the memory of Sagan. Truly, a candle in the dark. ... > Max Many of us here agree Max. Oh my had Sagan lived, how his mind would have been blown by the two biggie discoveries made since that sad day a few days before jingle bells 1996. Hard to believe he's been gone over a decade now, isn't it? The two big discoveries I am thinking about is the nature of gamma ray bursts and the open universe. Neither were anything like what I would have expected. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 9 05:06:03 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 00:06:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The void left by deleting religion In-Reply-To: <200705090354.l493s9i5015033@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <200705070733.l477XOnk026167@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com> <200705090354.l493s9i5015033@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070509000008.0224cf10@satx.rr.com> At 08:49 PM 5/8/2007 -0700, spike wrote: >The two big discoveries I am thinking about is the nature of gamma ray >bursts and the open universe. Well, my colleague Paul Davies published a book called THE RUNAWAY UNIVERSE back in 1979. Can't recall whether he had the amazing insight to propose an *accelerating* expansion, but he was pushing for a revival of the cosmological constant, which was very unfashionable at the time. Which gamma ray burst explanation are you thinking of? I've read about a whole variety. You mean that they're extragalactic? Jets? Damien Broderick From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 9 05:50:08 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 22:50:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gamma ray bursts In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20070509000008.0224cf10@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <200705090607.l4967WCe015540@andromeda.ziaspace.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat- > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > > Which gamma ray burst explanation are you thinking of? Damien Broderick Ja, just the confirmation that they are extragalactic. I always hoped they were, just because I like really big explosions. My favorite models required they be big and far. It makes more sense that way too: I couldn't figure any model for how they are isolikely regardless of orientation with respect to the galactic plane if they were small and close. We have statistical techniques that would filter out even a small difference between on the plane and off. With BeppoSAX, the Compton BATSE and SWIFT, this is a fun time to be alive for those who gaze at the sky. spike I trademark and donate to the public domain the wonderful term isolikely. From jonkc at att.net Wed May 9 06:09:22 2007 From: jonkc at att.net (John K Clark) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 02:09:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gamma Ray Bursts (was: The void left by deleting religion) References: <200705070733.l477XOnk026167@ms-smtp-05.texas.rr.com><200705090354.l493s9i5015033@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20070509000008.0224cf10@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <00a801c79200$9b381e30$9e084e0c@MyComputer> "Damien Broderick" > Which gamma ray burst explanation are you thinking of? There are lots of theories but I don't believe any gamma ray burst explanation is yet entirely satisfactory. > I've read about a whole variety. It seems you can group them into 2 categories, those that last between a tenth of a second and 2 seconds and those that last about 100 seconds. They don't last long but in that short time they produce about a thousand times as much energy as the sun will in it's entire 6 billion year history. They are the most energetic things in the known universe. >You mean that they're extragalactic? Yes, they are at cosmological distances, and it's a good think too, if one blew up anywhere in our galaxy we'd be dead meat. Fortunately that is unlikely, the precursors seem to be huge metal poor stars and the universe hasn't made stars like that for billions of years, so they're all billions of light years away. Modern stars have traces of metal in them and this greatly accelerates the solar wind so when a large star reaches the end of its life it has already lost a substantial percentage of its mass; ancient stars had little or no metal and thus kept most of their mass until the very end when they blew up. > Jets? Probably, otherwise they'd have to be even more energetic to be as bright as they are over such huge distances. A few years ago one was so bright it damaged some satellites and had a detectable effect on the upper atmosphere, and this from halfway across the universe. We only see the ones with the jets pointing our way. John K Clark From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 9 06:20:56 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 01:20:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman: The Uncharted Territory of Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <000c01c791d0$aea32120$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> References: <000c01c791d0$aea32120$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070509011155.02390750@satx.rr.com> >Meanwhile, in apparent agreement with Kass, a 2002 document edited >by then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope], Communion and >Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, states, >"Disposing of death is in reality the most radical way of disposing of life." Uh... huh... That's fine, sweetie. You and your "flock" just hold firmly to that idea if you wish, and go away gently to do your thing. Just leave us alone to do ours, okay? We won't force you to stop dying, and you don't force us to stop living, is that fair? Damien Broderick From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 9 06:24:56 2007 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 08:24:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Cold fusion: some new results. In-Reply-To: <798938.91646.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <3cf171fe0705081337r1b12018bk63111c0a3cd4d779@mail.gmail.com> <798938.91646.qm@web37413.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070509062456.GW17691@leitl.org> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 02:12:31PM -0700, A B wrote: > > Wouldn't cold fusion be a direct and obvious violation > of conservation of energy? You could just keep fusing It's turning mass defect directly into energy, via E=mc^2. Fusing lighter elements gives you more mass defect. Heavier elements fission, releasing energy. There is an island of stability, around iron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy > the lighter elements and then eventually recover the > input energy by fissioning (fissing?) the > heavy-element end products. I know that it requires > more input energy the heavier the element gets, but You can't make energy from iron & Co via nuclear processes. About the only way to turn iron mass into energy is by matter-energy conversion via Hawking radiation (which has not yet been observed, and might not exist). > fat stars manage to do it. That seems more like an > engineering difficulty rather than an immutable > fundamental barrier. I don't know enough about it one > way or another, but I'm really hoping that it can be > validated. That'd be sweeeet. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Wed May 9 08:28:36 2007 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 01:28:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: "The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever..." In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51ce64f10705090128w16d4eab8g1742f7c431f780da@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/07, Amara Graps wrote: > > > "The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... and Other Champions of the Lost Cause" > By:Kathleen McGowan > > Page 5 of 5 > http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070227-000001&page=5 I am strapping! Also I'm a boy even though I'm 23! Yay! -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Wed May 9 08:39:46 2007 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 01:39:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... In-Reply-To: <380-2200752822416365@M2W014.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200752822416365@M2W014.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <51ce64f10705090139h6f7d50ddk363ff0fd5c516772@mail.gmail.com> On 5/8/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > (Thanks Amara) > > Congratulations Michael. You are a hero! Thanks Natasha! Michael has defeated negative impression of H+ among Psychology Today readers! You gain 645 PR points. LEVEL UP! You are now Transhumanist Level 8. Rolodex skill up 5 Media diplomacy up 7 Memetic infectiousness up 4 You learn Extropian Storm. ITEM GET: 2-page spread in Psych Today. -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From pgptag at gmail.com Wed May 9 09:03:27 2007 From: pgptag at gmail.com (Giu1i0 Pri5c0) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 11:03:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... In-Reply-To: <380-2200752822416365@M2W014.mail2web.com> References: <380-2200752822416365@M2W014.mail2web.com> Message-ID: <470a3c520705090203r1c30f1b6ke68a135fe8a9045f@mail.gmail.com> Kudos Michael! Also for the RU Sirius interview. G. On 5/9/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > (Thanks Amara) > > Congratulations Michael. You are a hero! > > Natasha > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web.com ? Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft(r) > Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 09:58:35 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 02:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] "U can be the President, I'd rather be the Pope" Message-ID: <799636.3426.qm@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Meanwhile, in apparent agreement with Kass, a 2002 document edited >by then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope], Communion and >Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, states, >"Disposing of death is in reality the most radical way of disposing of life." Damien wrote: >Uh... huh... I think what the then Cardinal meant was that doing away with death would dispose of the meaning in life. But you would think such learned men would be clearer in their writings or with whatever they edit. I don't think either of us can be surprised by this stance of the Church due to the fact they are much more into the making of "new little Catholics." lol But to their credit they did establish hospitals all over the globe and many nuns and priests have lead noble and self-sacrificing lives in such places. As leader of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" Ratzinger was in charge of making sure Roman Catholic doctrine was kept "pure." He was the closest thing the Catholic Church has to a 16th century inquisitor! lol And in fact this body within the Church was established in the time of the Spanish Inquisition to contend with heresy (they were the "kinder & gentler" answer to the Inquisition). Damien wrote: That's fine, sweetie. You and your "flock" just hold firmly to that idea if you wish, and go away gently to do your thing. Just leave us alone to do ours, okay? We won't force you to stop dying, and you don't force us to stop living, is that fair? > But what if they force you to stop using birth control and insist you have tons of kids! lol I could see Roman Catholic leadership in about a century or less actually endorsing extreme life extension technologies because once their third world membership stop having large families (and start practicing birth control) they will get very concerned about their numbers shrinking. This post has me thinking about a SF novel Clifford D. Simak wrote years ago about a robot being elected pope. I never did read that, but I did read Bruce Sterling's "Holy Fire" which had a reference to a "chemical/neural revival" in the papacy due to some super-charged nootropics! lol Damien wrote: I found the previous pope much easier to like than Ratzinger. But I do admire this one for trying to open a dialogue with the Muslim world, though I was both shocked and amused when he dug deep into history and quoted a negative remark about Islam by a medieval King of Byzantium. I suppose Islamic leaders are still smarting over the various crusades called for by Pope Ratzinger's predecessors! One day I would like to peer into the various parallel realities of our world and see if there is one where President Bush allied himself with the Vatican and got the Pope to declare a modern-day Crusade because the goal was the full subjugation of the entire Middle East. This line of thought makes me wonder if there is still "room" for a Papacy-backed Crusade in our modern world. Alien invasion? An extended war with China? Or maybe a post-apocalyptic scenario where the Roman Catholic Church helps keep the vestiges of society together and they call for a Crusade to hold off some relentless invader. I realize that is a classic science fiction plotline. It will be very interesting to see how the Roman Catholic Church evolves over the next century or two. But I could say the same thing about the Mormons, the Evangelicals or for that matter the Jehovah's Witnesses. John Grigg P.S. "Sweetie?" I'm not sure if "His Holiness" is used to being called that! hee P.S. #2 This post should be read while listening to the Prince song "Pope" ; ) --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at goertzel.org Wed May 9 10:20:03 2007 From: ben at goertzel.org (Benjamin Goertzel) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 06:20:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: "The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever..." In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10705090128w16d4eab8g1742f7c431f780da@mail.gmail.com> References: <51ce64f10705090128w16d4eab8g1742f7c431f780da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3cf171fe0705090320k6d4c3565ifb75a3bafcfd6966@mail.gmail.com> > > > "The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... and Other Champions of the Lost > Cause" > > By:Kathleen McGowan > > > > Page 5 of 5 > > > http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070227-000001&page=5 > > I am strapping! Also I'm a boy even though I'm 23! Yay! Hmmm... I had noticed the boyishness but to be honest, the strapping-ness had escaped me up till now... I will have to keep my eye out for it next time I'm in California!!! Contratulations, though, Michael ;-) -- Ben G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com Wed May 9 11:14:34 2007 From: desertpaths2003 at yahoo.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 04:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10705090139h6f7d50ddk363ff0fd5c516772@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <136281.30887.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It's a fun article and I'm very glad Michael got such a cool write-up. I just wish Ray Kurzweil and Aubrey de Grey had also been treated respectfully. From the Psychology Today article: Life extentionists, cryogenics enthusiasts, and longevity buffs have an image problem, thanks in large part to guys like the inventor Ray Kurzweil, who sucks down hundreds of supplements and drinks 10 cups of green tea every day with the conviction that it will prolong his life. Also not helping: geneticist Aubrey de Grey, the wild-looking, raggedy-bearded Oxford professor who proclaims that at least one person alive today may live to be 1,000 years old. > Ray Kurzweil You lose 1,000 PR points! Aubrey de Grey You lose 2,000 PR points! You are both infected with "Media Scorn" Public image down 20 for each John : ( Michael Anissimov wrote: On 5/8/07, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote: > (Thanks Amara) > > Congratulations Michael. You are a hero! Thanks Natasha! Michael has defeated negative impression of H+ among Psychology Today readers! You gain 645 PR points. LEVEL UP! You are now Transhumanist Level 8. Rolodex skill up 5 Media diplomacy up 7 Memetic infectiousness up 4 You learn Extropian Storm. ITEM GET: 2-page spread in Psych Today. -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcowan5 at sympatico.ca Wed May 9 11:55:13 2007 From: jcowan5 at sympatico.ca (Joshua Cowan) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 11:55:13 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to LiveForever... Message-ID: Kudos to Michael! Does anyone know about or been interviewed for "Rapture for the Geeks" by Richard Dooling. It's scheduled to come out in fall 2008. "Harmony's John Glusman has acquired a new book by National Book Award finalist Richard Dooling entitled Rapture for the Geeks, a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the post-human universe." Gail Hochman at Brandt & Hochman sold world rights, pub date fall 2008." http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6431495.html From hemm at openlink.com.br Wed May 9 12:25:34 2007 From: hemm at openlink.com.br (Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk)) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:25:34 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to LiveForever... References: <136281.30887.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0fcb01c79235$254bb8f0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> John Grigg>It's a fun article and I'm very glad Michael got such a cool write-up. I just wish Ray Kurzweil and Aubrey de Grey >had also been treated respectfully. Indeed. The only bad thing I can say about Dr. de Grey is that he speaks insanely fast :-) From spike66 at comcast.net Wed May 9 14:20:04 2007 From: spike66 at comcast.net (spike) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 07:20:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: "The Boy Who Wants to LiveForever..." In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10705090128w16d4eab8g1742f7c431f780da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200705091420.l49EKMpQ003654@andromeda.ziaspace.com> ... > > "The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... and Other Champions of the Lost > Cause" > > By:Kathleen McGowan > > > > Page 5 of 5 > > http://psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070227- 000001&page=5 > > I am strapping! Also I'm a boy even though I'm 23! Yay! > > -- > Michael Anissimov Strapping Michael? Having a sturdy muscular physique; robust? I will give you robust pal, perhaps even sturdy, but you are nearly as slender as I. We are not exactly California governor material here. {8^D I need to find this McGowan; if she thinks you are strapping, then she might describe my boney frame as "practically normal." {8^D spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed May 9 15:44:55 2007 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 10:44:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: "The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever..." In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10705090128w16d4eab8g1742f7c431f780da@mail.gmail.co m> References: <51ce64f10705090128w16d4eab8g1742f7c431f780da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070509103927.022252d0@satx.rr.com> At 01:28 AM 5/9/2007 -0700, Michael Anissimov wrote: > > "The Boy Who Wants to Live Forever... and Other Champions of the > Lost Cause" > > By:Kathleen McGowan >I am strapping! Also I'm a boy even though I'm 23! Yay! "The Boy Who Would Live Forever" is a Fred Pohl title (in the Gateway sequence), published in 2004. This might not be a coincidence. I haven't been able to trace any earlier form of the phrase to folklore, say. Damien Broderick From george at betterhumans.com Wed May 9 16:41:40 2007 From: george at betterhumans.com (George Dvorsky) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 12:41:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to LiveForever... In-Reply-To: <0fcb01c79235$254bb8f0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> References: <136281.30887.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0fcb01c79235$254bb8f0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: Is there a Web link for this yet? George From michaelanissimov at gmail.com Wed May 9 16:45:33 2007 From: michaelanissimov at gmail.com (Michael Anissimov) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:45:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to LiveForever... In-Reply-To: <0fcb01c79235$254bb8f0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> References: <136281.30887.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0fcb01c79235$254bb8f0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: <51ce64f10705090945r40061501va8a1d63a513874ee@mail.gmail.com> On 5/9/07, Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk) wrote: > > Indeed. The only bad thing I can say about Dr. de Grey is that he speaks > insanely fast :-) Aubrey de Grey is one of the only people I know who I think speaks *fast enough*. The other is Michael Vassar. Listening to people talk is so much slower than typing and reading, we should minimize the disadvantage of speech by talking very rapidly. -- Michael Anissimov Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog From jef at jefallbright.net Wed May 9 17:10:47 2007 From: jef at jefallbright.net (Jef Allbright) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:10:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to LiveForever... In-Reply-To: <51ce64f10705090945r40061501va8a1d63a513874ee@mail.gmail.com> References: <136281.30887.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0fcb01c79235$254bb8f0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> <51ce64f10705090945r40061501va8a1d63a513874ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 5/9/07, Michael Anissimov wrote: > On 5/9/07, Henrique Moraes Machado (oplnk) wrote: > > > > Indeed. The only bad thing I can say about Dr. de Grey is that he speaks > > insanely fast :-) > > Aubrey de Grey is one of the only people I know who I think speaks > *fast enough*. The other is Michael Vassar. Listening to people talk > is so much slower than typing and reading, we should minimize the > disadvantage of speech by talking very rapidly. Yes!. As long as the speech is well organized. Steve Jurvetson is another excellent fast speaker. By the way, Michael, I went to my old web site with the intention of updating a page where I referred to you as a "young transhumanist". No, not to add the adjective "strapping" but to update "young", possibly to "not so young." Unfortunately I found my site has been overtaken by thousands of instances of comment spam, so I'll do the update right after I finish cleaning and updating security. Congratulations on your excellent publicity. - Jef From sti at pooq.com Wed May 9 18:23:21 2007 From: sti at pooq.com (Stirling Westrup) Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 14:23:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psychology Today Article: The Boy Who Wants to In-Reply-To: References: <136281.30887.qm@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0fcb01c79235$254bb8f0$fe00a8c0@cpd01> Message-ID: <46421199.2070909@pooq.com> George Dvorsky wrote: > Is there a Web link for this yet? > You can find it here: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=404 From joseph at josephbloch.com Wed May 9 00:26:25 2007 From: joseph at josephbloch.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 20:26:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Superhuman: The Uncharted Territory of Transhumanism Message-ID: <000c01c791d0$aea32120$6400a8c0@hypotenuse.com> I did an email interview with the author of this article last year, and he later informed me that they only went with half of the whole article he submitted. Obviously, this is going to be approaching Transhumanism from a Catholic perspective, but still, I think it doesn't come across too badly. http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2007/pavlat.htm ?By responsible use of science, technology, and other rational means we shall eventually manage to become posthuman.? ?Nick Bostrom ?The moral challenge of transhumanism will transcend those of abortion and euthanasia. For this reason, the pro-life movement must become the pro-human movement.? ?Nigel M. Cameron Cryonics. Neural implants. Designer babies. Welcome to the future of transhumanism. This energetic movement, comprising thousands of adherents, actively promotes the enhancement of humans via cybernetics, genetics, medicine, surgery, nanotechnology, and a full panoply of other scientific advancements. This enhancement would, according to Nick Bostrom?s ?Transhumanist Declaration,? seek to advocate ?the moral right for those who wish to do so to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives. [They] seek personal growth beyond [their] current biological limitations? (see www.transhumanism.org). This may sound like science fiction, but the philosophy behind the movement?improving or extending human life by whatever means possible?has already taken hold in society. Advances in modern medicine seem to offer us the very Fountain of Youth, and we seem fully prepared to embrace it. But at what cost? The question is not an easy one. Other issues touching on human life?abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia?have all been clearly defined by Church teaching. But the questions become more nuanced when we move from wholesale destruction of the person to varying degrees of interference with or enhancement of the body. The Church has not definitively spoken on many areas of the transhumanist agenda, nor have bioethicists made many public proclamations. ?We?re not even asking the right questions yet,? admits Rev. Nicanor Austriaco, a bioethicist at Providence College. Radical Anti-Aging Technology The search for eternal youth is an ancient human impulse, going back to the world?s earliest recorded epic, Gilgamesh. But with modern medical technology, we now seem closer to achieving that end than ever before. The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, claiming more than 11,000 members, ?seeks to disseminate information concerning innovative science and research as well as treatment modalities designed to prolong the human life span? (www.worldhealth.net). Among the most common lines of research are gene therapy, stem cell therapy to grow everything from new nerves to hair, the injection of human growth hormone, and cryonics, in which technicians would freeze people?s bodies in the hopes of reviving them after years of suspended animation or even death. But does this go too far? Theological critics of anti-aging technology have pointed out that aging has long been considered a consequence of the Fall, and that we are undoing God?s command when we radically extend life through medical means. Leon Kass, former chairman of the President?s Council on Bioethics, sees other, more philosophical problems with anti-aging research: ?The desire to prolong youthfulness is not only a childish desire to eat one?s life and keep it. . . . It seeks an endless present, isolated from anything truly eternal, and severed from any true continuity with past and future. It is in principle hostile to children, because children, those who come after, are those who will take one?s place; they are life?s answer to mortality? (First Things, May 2001). Meanwhile, in apparent agreement with Kass, a 2002 document edited by then?Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, states, ?Disposing of death is in reality the most radical way of disposing of life.? On the other hand, Father Austriaco points out, ?A careful reading of Communion and Stewardship does not seem to suggest that anything in Catholic tradition would oppose longevity research that seeks to delay aging in the human being.? He also says that while it is true that at the Fall, God withdrew ?supernatural gifts we would have had had we not sinned,? he points out that, despite God?s injunction that women would suffer in childbirth, the Church allows pain relief for women in labor per Pope Pius XII?s 1957 ?Allocution to Doctors on the Moral Problems of Analgesia,? which states: ?Man keeps, even after the fall, his right to dominate the forces of nature, to use them in his service, and thus to make profitable all the resources that it offers him to avoid or remove the physical pain [of labor and delivery].? By this reasoning, it would seem, anti-aging technology could be morally acceptable. ?We do all kinds of things in anticipation of the resurrection,? says Father Austriaco, who is currently conducting research into the aging mechanisms of yeast, in the hopes of one day applying that research to humans. Pro-life bioethicist Nigel M. Cameron, president of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future (www.thehumanfuture.org), agrees: ?There?s something very human, and very properly human, about the desire to keep the human machine going.? However, he adds a caveat: Supporting life extension is different than supporting efforts to eliminate death altogether. But other parts of Communion and Stewardship are less clear, such as the Vatican?s apparent nixing of any strategies that ?chang[e] the genetic identity of man as a human person.? On one hand, the document says that such changes clearly contradict Catholic bioecthical tradition, as they ?imply that man has full right of disposal over his own biological nature.? On the other hand, the document also points out that ?germ line genetic engineering with a therapeutic goal? might be acceptable if it is accomplished in a way that does not harm human embryos. Is extending the human lifespan beyond its current limits a ?therapeutic goal?? No document answers that question fully. Beca